Illegal detention claims and availability of revisional remedy can defeat writ relief when custody becomes infructuous and revision remains open.

Illegal detention claims based on alleged constructive custody must be tested against the record and the statutory arrest procedure; on the facts stated, summons were issued, a COVID test was taken, and arrest followed under the CGST framework, so no basis was found to treat the custody as unlawful. The request for release also became infructuous once regular bail was granted during the petition's pendency. Separately, where the magistrate's order was amenable to revision under the CrPC, extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 482 was ordinarily inappropriate absent compelling circumstances, and the availability of that revisional remedy weighed against entertaining the petition.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner's allegation of illegal detention and constructive custody from 4 December 2020 to 7 December 2020 justified interference and release; (ii) whether the petition under Articles 226 and 482 of the Constitution was maintainable in view of the available revisional remedy against the magistrate's order.

Issue (i): whether the petitioner's allegation of illegal detention and constructive custody from 4 December 2020 to 7 December 2020 justified interference and release

Analysis: The petitioner was summoned during the enquiry under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and was later arrested under Section 69 of that Act. The record showed that summons had been issued on 4 and 5 December 2020, the petitioner was taken for a COVID test on 6 December 2020, and the arrest followed the statutory procedure on 7 December 2020. The petition had been filed to secure release from custody, but the petitioner had already obtained regular bail during its pendency. In that situation, the specific prayer for release no longer survived. The Court also found no basis to treat the custody as illegal on the facts placed before it.

Conclusion: The allegation of illegal detention did not furnish a surviving ground for relief, and the request for release had become infructuous.

Issue (ii): whether the petition under Articles 226 and 482 of the Constitution was maintainable in view of the available revisional remedy against the magistrate's order

Analysis: The impugned order of the magistrate could be challenged by revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court emphasised that where an efficacious revisional remedy is available, invocation of inherent jurisdiction is ordinarily not warranted unless compelling circumstances are shown. No such compelling circumstance was demonstrated. The availability of the revisional remedy therefore weighed against entertaining the petition.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable in the exercise of extraordinary or inherent jurisdiction when a revisional remedy was available and had not been exhausted.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed on the surviving grounds because the core relief had ceased to exist during the pendency of the matter and the challenge was also rendered inappropriate in view of the unexhausted revisional remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substantive relief sought has become infructuous during the pendency of the petition and an efficacious statutory revision is available against the impugned order, extraordinary writ or inherent jurisdiction should not be invoked in the absence of compelling circumstances.

---