Habeas corpus unavailable after judicial remand where custody is lawful and arrest objections were not timely raised.

Habeas corpus is not maintainable where the person is already in judicial custody under a reasoned remand order, unless that remand is shown to be wholly without jurisdiction, absolutely illegal, or mechanical. Alleged defects in arrest, non-supply of grounds of arrest, or detention beyond 24 hours do not by themselves justify the writ where the custody on the relevant date is pursuant to judicial remand and those objections were not raised at the first opportunity before the remand court. The later requirement to furnish a physical copy of the grounds of arrest did not assist on these facts because the grounds had been served and acknowledged.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition seeking habeas corpus was maintainable when the petitioner was already in judicial custody pursuant to remand orders, and whether the alleged illegality in arrest, non-supply of grounds of arrest, and detention beyond 24 hours could justify such relief.

Analysis: The governing principle applied was that habeas corpus lies only where the detention is illegal on the relevant date and that once custody is pursuant to a judicial remand order, the writ will not lie unless the remand is shown to be absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction, or passed in a wholly mechanical manner. The Court noted that the petitioner was in judicial custody on the returnable date under reasoned remand orders, and that the alleged infirmities in arrest and service of grounds had not been raised before the remand court at the first available opportunity. The Court further held that the later decision requiring a physical copy of the grounds of arrest to be furnished would not assist the petitioner on the facts, as the grounds had in fact been served and acknowledged.

Conclusion: The habeas corpus petition was not maintainable and the requested relief could not be granted.

---