https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285691 Arrest and continued custody without lawful production before a Magistrate were held to violate the constitutional safeguards under Articles 21 and 22(2), because the remand process lacked any lawful disclosure of production and was found to be surreptitious and high-handed. The court further held that, where liberty is unlawfully curtailed with mala fide or mischievous intent, writ jurisdiction can extend to exemplary monetary compensation as constitutional redress. On those findings, the petitioner was granted compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of liberty. en-us Fri, 22 Nov 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Jan 2020 14:21:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285691 Arrest and continued custody without lawful production before a Magistrate were held to violate the constitutional safeguards under Articles 21 and 22(2), because the remand process lacked any lawful disclosure of production and was found to be surreptitious and high-handed. The court further held that, where liberty is unlawfully curtailed with mala fide or mischievous intent, writ jurisdiction can extend to exemplary monetary compensation as constitutional redress. On those findings, the petitioner was granted compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of liberty. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 22 Nov 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285691