Continuous judicial custody remains lawful after timely complaint filing when production warrants preserve custody pending cognizance.

Custody does not become illegal merely because cognizance is deferred and a fresh remand order is not separately recorded on the same day, where the prosecution complaint has been filed in time and judicial custody remains continuous. The Delhi High Court treated investigative remand and post-cognizance remand as distinct, but held that the accused remained in lawful court custody pending the next judicial stage. It also held that production warrants, the transfer of the complaint, and the procedural record preserved continuity of custody and negatived any claim of a break rendering detention unlawful. Habeas corpus relief was therefore not made out.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioners' detention became illegal after filing of the prosecution complaint and before cognizance was taken, in the absence of a fresh remand order; (ii) whether issuance of production warrants and the surrounding procedural record preserved the legality of the petitioners' custody.

Issue (i): whether the petitioners' detention became illegal after filing of the prosecution complaint and before cognizance was taken, in the absence of a fresh remand order.

Analysis: The petitions were founded on the claim that custody after 07.12.2023 was unsupported by a valid judicial order and therefore offended personal liberty. The applicable framework under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was examined. It was held that the investigative-stage remand and the post-cognizance remand are distinct, but custody must remain continuous and in accordance with law. Once the prosecution complaint had been filed within time, the accused remained in the custody of court until the next judicial stage, and the absence of an immediate fresh remand order did not by itself create an illegal break where the custody had not lapsed in substance.

Conclusion: The detention did not become illegal merely because cognizance was deferred and no separate remand order was passed on the same day.

Issue (ii): whether issuance of production warrants and the surrounding procedural record preserved the legality of the petitioners' custody.

Analysis: The Court placed emphasis on the fact that the petitioners were represented before the successor court, the complaint had been transferred, the matter was posted for consideration of cognizance, and production warrants were issued for the next date. The Court treated this as maintaining continuity of judicial custody. It rejected the submission that non-production before the court on that date necessarily rendered the custody void, and held that the record showed no gap sufficient to characterise the detention as unlawful.

Conclusion: The issuance of production warrants sustained the legality of custody and negatived the plea of illegal detention.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed because the petitioners remained in lawful custody of the court and no case for habeas corpus relief was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a prosecution complaint is filed in time and the court issues production warrants while the matter is pending for cognizance, custody remains continuous and does not become illegal merely because a fresh remand order is not separately recorded on that date.

---