<?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>2014 (7) TMI 1223 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188968</link>
    <description>Custody pursuant to arrest in a criminal case, followed by production before the Magistrate and remand by judicial order, was not illegal detention. The record showed continued custody under valid remand orders passed by the competent criminal court, so habeas corpus under Article 32 was unavailable. Where detention is authorised by law and supported by judicial remand, the proper remedy is to seek bail before the criminal court, not challenge custody as unlawful by writ.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2016 10:41:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452498" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 1223 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188968</link>
      <description>Custody pursuant to arrest in a criminal case, followed by production before the Magistrate and remand by judicial order, was not illegal detention. The record showed continued custody under valid remand orders passed by the competent criminal court, so habeas corpus under Article 32 was unavailable. Where detention is authorised by law and supported by judicial remand, the proper remedy is to seek bail before the criminal court, not challenge custody as unlawful by writ.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188968</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>