https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285740 Habeas corpus was held unavailable where the accused was in custody pursuant to a judicial remand order, even though it was alleged that the custody had continued beyond the statutory period and that the charge-sheet was not properly filed. The distinction between illegal police detention and custody under a competent court's remand was treated as material. Article 22(2) protection was held not to extend to detention resulting from judicial remand, and any challenge to the remand or filing process had to be pursued through appropriate proceedings against that judicial order, not through habeas corpus. en-us Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jan 2020 08:35:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285740 Habeas corpus was held unavailable where the accused was in custody pursuant to a judicial remand order, even though it was alleged that the custody had continued beyond the statutory period and that the charge-sheet was not properly filed. The distinction between illegal police detention and custody under a competent court's remand was treated as material. Article 22(2) protection was held not to extend to detention resulting from judicial remand, and any challenge to the remand or filing process had to be pursued through appropriate proceedings against that judicial order, not through habeas corpus. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285740