Habeas corpus and sentence set-off cannot displace valid remand custody or continuing lawful detention in other criminal cases.

Habeas corpus is not available to secure release where detention is supported by valid judicial remand orders, unless the remand is shown to be without jurisdiction, mechanically passed, or otherwise illegal. The Court also noted that sentence computation and set-off principles under the Code of Criminal Procedure do not justify release if the person remains in lawful custody in other pending criminal cases. While custody cannot exceed the maximum punishment for the relevant offence merely on that offence alone, set-off operates case-wise and cannot override continuing lawful detention under other valid criminal process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ of habeas corpus could be entertained when the petitioner was in custody pursuant to judicial remand orders passed by competent courts; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to release on the ground that the maximum period of imprisonment under the money-laundering charge had allegedly been undergone, taking into account the rules of set-off and custody computation under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue (i): Whether a writ of habeas corpus could be entertained when the petitioner was in custody pursuant to judicial remand orders passed by competent courts.

Analysis: The governing principle is that habeas corpus is unavailable where detention rests on a valid judicial order of remand, unless the order is shown to be without jurisdiction, mechanically passed, or wholly illegal. The Court relied on the settled distinction between unlawful custody and custody under judicial orders, and noted that challenge to remand orders ordinarily lies in appropriate criminal proceedings rather than by habeas corpus. It also held that the existence of another remedy does not bar constitutional relief in an exceptional case, but that exception did not assist the petitioner because the custody complained of was not shown to be illegal in law.

Conclusion: The writ of habeas corpus was not maintainable to secure release from custody supported by valid remand orders.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to release on the ground that the maximum period of imprisonment under the money-laundering charge had allegedly been undergone, taking into account the rules of set-off and custody computation under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: The Court examined the punishment under the money-laundering provisions together with the constitutional protections under Articles 20 and 21 and the provisions governing consecutive sentences and set-off. It accepted the legal position that a person cannot be kept in custody beyond the maximum punishment applicable to the relevant offence merely because of that offence alone. At the same time, the Court held that custody already being undergone in other cases, including cases where valid judicial remand orders continued to operate, could not be ignored. The benefit of set-off under the Code applies case-wise and does not authorise release where the petitioner remains in custody under other valid criminal process.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to immediate release on the basis of the maximum sentence argument, because valid custody in other cases continued to subsist.

Final Conclusion: The petition did not justify a direct order of release; the petitioner was left to work out his remedies in accordance with law, and the writ application was disposed of on that basis.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to secure release from custody supported by a valid judicial remand order, and the benefit of sentence computation or set-off cannot override continuing lawful custody in other pending criminal cases.

---