Habeas corpus is not the proper remedy once custody is authorised by a valid remand order.

Bombay HC stated that a writ of habeas corpus is generally not maintainable where the petitioner's custody is already authorised by a competent magistrate's remand order. Even if the initial arrest is alleged to have been illegal or in breach of constitutional safeguards, that prior irregularity does not by itself justify habeas corpus once valid judicial custody exists. The court noted that the remand order was a judicial act based on relevant material and was not shown to be without jurisdiction or mechanical. The proper remedy in such circumstances is to seek bail before the appropriate court.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of habeas corpus lies where the petitioner alleges illegal arrest and violation of constitutional safeguards, but the custody on the date of the petition is pursuant to a remand order passed by the competent court.

Analysis: The petition was founded on the allegation that the petitioner was initially detained illegally and was not produced within the prescribed time. The custody challenge was examined in the light of the remand order already passed by the competent magistrate. The remand order was found to be a judicial order passed after consideration of the relevant material and was not shown to be without jurisdiction or wholly illegal. The Court held that once custody is authorised by a competent court, a writ of habeas corpus is not the proper remedy merely because the initial arrest is alleged to be irregular. The petitioner was held to have an effective remedy by seeking bail before the appropriate court.

Conclusion: The petition for habeas corpus was not maintainable and the challenge to custody failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Custody authorised by a competent court pursuant to a remand order ordinarily cures the alleged illegality of prior arrest for the purpose of habeas corpus, unless the remand itself is without jurisdiction or passed mechanically without application of mind.

---