Custody remand cannot override a subsisting regular bail order once that bail has attained finality.

Once an accused has been enlarged on regular bail and that order stands upheld by the Supreme Court, a Magistrate cannot grant police custody under Section 167 CrPC in a manner inconsistent with the subsisting bail order. The High Court noted that custody-remand applications moved after the bail order had attained finality could not be entertained to defeat that order, and the remand controversy had become academic. On that basis, the Court declined to quash the impugned remand orders or grant the custody remand sought, leaving the petitioners without the relief requested.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could quash the orders declining custody remand of the accused under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the order granting regular bail had been upheld by the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The custody-remand applications were moved after the accused had already been enlarged on regular bail, and that order had been left undisturbed by the Supreme Court. In such a situation, the Court held that the trial court could not grant police custody contrary to the subsisting bail order, and the High Court could not now interfere with the impugned remand orders. The Court further held that, because the matter had already attained finality on the bail question, the prayer for custody remand could survive only as an academic issue and not for adjudication on merits in these petitions.

Conclusion: The High Court held that it was no longer competent to quash the impugned orders or grant the custody remand sought by the Enforcement Directorate, and the petitioners were not entitled to the relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi: Once an accused has been enlarged on bail and that order stands upheld, a Magistrate cannot override the bail order by granting police custody, and the superior court will not entertain a remand request that is inconsistent with the subsisting bail order.

---