Illegal detention after expiry of investigation period cannot be cured by remand; habeas corpus remains available

Where the statutory period for investigation under Section 212(3) of the Companies Act had already expired, an arrest made before any later ex post facto extension was held to lack legal sanction and jurisdiction. The applicants had cooperated and no flight risk was shown, supporting the finding that the detention was illegal. A Magistrate's remand order could not cure an arrest that was void at its inception, and habeas corpus scrutiny remained available to test the legality of the detention. The detention was held to offend Article 21, and interim bail was granted pending the writ petitions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the arrest and continued detention of the applicants, effected after expiry of the time granted for investigation and before the ex post facto extension, were without legal sanction and jurisdiction. (ii) Whether remand orders passed by the Magistrate could validate such detention or bar scrutiny in habeas corpus proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the arrest and continued detention of the applicants, effected after expiry of the time granted for investigation and before the ex post facto extension, were without legal sanction and jurisdiction.

Analysis: The time fixed by the Competent Authority for completion of investigation under Section 212(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 had already expired when the applicants were arrested. The extension was sought only after the expiry of that period and was granted later. On those facts, the investigating agency acted beyond the authority then in force, and the arrest was not supported by legal sanction. The applicants had also cooperated with the investigation and no material showed any flight risk.

Conclusion: The arrest and detention were without jurisdiction and illegal, and this issue is decided in favour of the applicants.

Issue (ii): Whether remand orders passed by the Magistrate could validate such detention or bar scrutiny in habeas corpus proceedings.

Analysis: A writ of habeas corpus permits scrutiny of the legality of detention, and a remand order cannot sanctify an arrest that was itself illegal and lacking jurisdiction. The detention was held to violate the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The remand orders were therefore treated as incapable of curing the foundational illegality in the arrest.

Conclusion: The remand orders could not validate the illegal detention, and this issue is decided in favour of the applicants.

Final Conclusion: The applications succeeded and interim bail was granted during the pendency of the writ petitions, while the challenge to detention was accepted on merits at this stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory authority to investigate has lapsed, an arrest made in that interregnum is illegal and cannot be cured by a later remand order; habeas corpus jurisdiction can be invoked to test the legality of such detention.

---