https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197923 In habeas corpus review, detention is assessed on the date of return, so an earlier irregularity in the remand process does not justify release if later valid remand warrants by the competent court exist. The absence of a specific remand order on 5.5.2005 did not render custody illegal because subsequent warrants supported lawful detention. The fifteen-day limit in the first proviso to Section 309(2) applies to a Magistrate, not to a Court of Session, and a remand by warrant is sufficient compliance where adjournment reasons are recorded and the accused is duly remanded. The challenge to custody therefore failed. en-us Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jan 2018 10:47:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197923 In habeas corpus review, detention is assessed on the date of return, so an earlier irregularity in the remand process does not justify release if later valid remand warrants by the competent court exist. The absence of a specific remand order on 5.5.2005 did not render custody illegal because subsequent warrants supported lawful detention. The fifteen-day limit in the first proviso to Section 309(2) applies to a Magistrate, not to a Court of Session, and a remand by warrant is sufficient compliance where adjournment reasons are recorded and the accused is duly remanded. The challenge to custody therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197923