https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302616 A formal arrest of a person already in judicial custody in another case does not, by itself, place him in police custody or automatically trigger the twenty-four hour rule under Article 22(2) and Section 57. The legal distinction between arrest and custody was applied to hold that the accused may remain in judicial custody in the earlier case until production before the Magistrate. On production, the Magistrate may consider remand under Section 167 on its merits and may authorise custody prospectively, even if a prior detention defect is alleged. The supposed lapse of twenty-four hours from formal arrest was not a bar to a valid remand order. en-us Thu, 03 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jun 2022 15:55:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302616 A formal arrest of a person already in judicial custody in another case does not, by itself, place him in police custody or automatically trigger the twenty-four hour rule under Article 22(2) and Section 57. The legal distinction between arrest and custody was applied to hold that the accused may remain in judicial custody in the earlier case until production before the Magistrate. On production, the Magistrate may consider remand under Section 167 on its merits and may authorise custody prospectively, even if a prior detention defect is alleged. The supposed lapse of twenty-four hours from formal arrest was not a bar to a valid remand order. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 03 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302616