https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285625 Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was confined to securing a prisoner's attendance before a court in inquiry, trial, or other pending proceedings, and could not be stretched to compel production merely for police interrogation during investigation. Section 167(2) was read as requiring active judicial control of custody through specific remand orders; an accused had to be produced before the magistrate for further detention unless non-production was lawfully explained. Continued custody after expiry of the authorised remand period, without fresh remand orders, was held illegal. The judgment also noted that the bail prayer had become infructuous because the petitioner was no longer in custody. en-us Thu, 01 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Jan 2020 12:26:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285625 Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was confined to securing a prisoner's attendance before a court in inquiry, trial, or other pending proceedings, and could not be stretched to compel production merely for police interrogation during investigation. Section 167(2) was read as requiring active judicial control of custody through specific remand orders; an accused had to be produced before the magistrate for further detention unless non-production was lawfully explained. Continued custody after expiry of the authorised remand period, without fresh remand orders, was held illegal. The judgment also noted that the bail prayer had become infructuous because the petitioner was no longer in custody. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 01 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285625