https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105519 Article 32 petitions may be entertained on a prima facie claim of infringement or threat to Article 21, so maintainability was recognised despite the petitioners' custody. Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was unavailable because that relief applies to apprehended arrest, whereas the petitioners were already in custody under production warrants issued by competent criminal courts. Custody pursuant to lawful process did not by itself establish an Article 21 violation. Requests for consolidation of criminal cases, transfer of investigation to the CBI, and exemption from personal appearance were also declined, as those matters lay with the appropriate criminal forum and did not warrant constitutional relief. en-us Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Dec 2021 17:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105519 Article 32 petitions may be entertained on a prima facie claim of infringement or threat to Article 21, so maintainability was recognised despite the petitioners' custody. Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was unavailable because that relief applies to apprehended arrest, whereas the petitioners were already in custody under production warrants issued by competent criminal courts. Custody pursuant to lawful process did not by itself establish an Article 21 violation. Requests for consolidation of criminal cases, transfer of investigation to the CBI, and exemption from personal appearance were also declined, as those matters lay with the appropriate criminal forum and did not warrant constitutional relief. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105519