Remand validity in committal proceedings upheld despite non-production before magistrate and alleged delay in commencement.

Remand in committal proceedings was held not invalid merely because the accused had not been produced before the magistrate, so the challenge to detention failed. The Court also found no basis for relief on alleged delay in starting the committal proceedings, noting the State's explanation for the difficulty in commencing them and its undertaking to separate unavailable accused persons and proceed expeditiously within a fixed time. The detention was therefore not illegal and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's detention and remand in committal proceedings were illegal because he had not been produced before the magistrate, and whether the alleged delay in commencing the committal proceedings warranted relief.

Analysis: The challenge to the remand failed because the earlier decision of the Court had already held that remand is not invalid merely on the ground that the accused was not produced before the magistrate. As to delay, the State explained the difficulties in commencing the proceedings and undertook to separate unavailable accused persons and to proceed expeditiously within a fixed time.

Conclusion: The detention was not illegal, and no relief was warranted on the ground of delay.

Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed after rejecting the challenge to the legality of the petitioner's detention.

Ratio Decidendi: Remand does not become invalid solely because the accused was not produced before the magistrate.

---