<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (9) TMI 1080 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188951</link>
    <description>Habeas corpus does not lie where custody is supported by a valid judicial remand order passed by a competent Magistrate. A stay of further investigation in a connected quashing petition does not, by itself, render existing custody illegal or invalidate the remand, because remand under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a judicial act distinct from investigation under Section 2(h). The legality of detention is assessed with reference to the custody existing on the relevant date, and release can be sought only if the remand is wholly without jurisdiction or patently illegal. On that basis, the custody was not illegal and habeas corpus was not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2018 09:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 1080 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188951</link>
      <description>Habeas corpus does not lie where custody is supported by a valid judicial remand order passed by a competent Magistrate. A stay of further investigation in a connected quashing petition does not, by itself, render existing custody illegal or invalidate the remand, because remand under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a judicial act distinct from investigation under Section 2(h). The legality of detention is assessed with reference to the custody existing on the relevant date, and release can be sought only if the remand is wholly without jurisdiction or patently illegal. On that basis, the custody was not illegal and habeas corpus was not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188951</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>