https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311429 Detention without prompt production before a competent Magistrate and continued police custody were treated as a denial of personal liberty, since the husband was kept in custody from the morning of 25-10-1994, not produced before a Magistrate in Hyderabad, and later taken before a Magistrate lacking proper jurisdiction. The Court held that this conduct violated Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, because the safeguards governing arrest and remand were not observed. Applying the principle that grave infringement of liberty may justify a compensatory remedy, the Court awarded interim compensation to the petitioner. en-us Tue, 02 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Dec 2023 15:08:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311429 Detention without prompt production before a competent Magistrate and continued police custody were treated as a denial of personal liberty, since the husband was kept in custody from the morning of 25-10-1994, not produced before a Magistrate in Hyderabad, and later taken before a Magistrate lacking proper jurisdiction. The Court held that this conduct violated Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, because the safeguards governing arrest and remand were not observed. Applying the principle that grave infringement of liberty may justify a compensatory remedy, the Court awarded interim compensation to the petitioner. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311429