2018 (9) TMI 1782 - SC - Indian Laws

Illegal and unlawful detention - Writ of habeas corpus directing the Appellants to produce her husband - whether a writ of habeas corpus could be maintained in respect of a person who is in police custody pursuant to a remand order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate in connection with the offence under investigation? Held that - Admittedly, when the writ petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus was filed by the Respondent on 18th/19th March, 2018 and decided by the High Court on 21st March, 2018 her husband Rizwan Alam Siddique was in police custody pursuant to an order passed by the Magistrate granting his police custody in connection with FIR No. I-31 vide order dated 17th March, 2018 and which police remand was to enure till 23rd March, 2018. Further, without challenging the stated order of the Magistrate, a writ petition was filed limited to the relief of habeas corpus. In that view of the matter, it was not a case of continued illegal detention but the incumbent was in judicial custody by virtue of an order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate, which was in force, granting police remand during investigation of a criminal case. Resultantly, no writ of habeas corpus could be issued. Suffice it to observe that since no writ of habeas corpus could be issued in the fact situation of the present case, the High Court should have been loath to enter upon the merits of the arrest in absence of any challenge to the judicial order passed by the Magistrate granting police custody till 23rd March, 2018 and more particularly for reasons mentioned in that order of the Magistrate. Even though this appeal succeeds, since the Respondent s husband Rizwan Alam Siddique has already been released after the impugned judgment, the Investigating Officer may proceed against him in connection with the stated crime strictly in accordance with law and not merely because the impugned order has been set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a writ of habeas corpus could be issued for a person in police custody pursuant to a remand order.
2. Whether the High Court's scathing observations against the police officials were warranted and should be expunged.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus:

The Appellants challenged the High Court's decision to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the production of the Respondent's husband, who was allegedly unlawfully detained by the police. The Appellants argued that no writ of habeas corpus could be issued for a person in police custody in connection with a criminal case under investigation, pursuant to a remand order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Supreme Court referred to precedents, including *Saurabh Kumar through his father v. Jailor, Koneila Jail and Anr.*, and *Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat and Ors.*, to establish that a writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable when the person is in judicial custody by virtue of a remand order. The Court noted that the Respondent's husband was in police custody pursuant to a Magistrate's order dated 17th March 2018, which was in effect until 23rd March 2018. Therefore, it concluded that the High Court erred in issuing the writ of habeas corpus without challenging the Magistrate's order, as it was not a case of continued illegal detention.

2. Expunging Scathing Observations Against Police Officials:

The Appellants also sought to expunge the scathing observations made by the High Court against the police officials. The High Court had criticized the police for unlawfully detaining the Respondent's husband and suggested disciplinary actions against them. The Supreme Court found these observations unwarranted, noting that the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) present in court could not have voluntarily released the accused in the face of a judicial order mandating police custody until 23rd March 2018. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have made such remarks without giving the concerned police officials an opportunity to explain the situation on affidavit. The Supreme Court referred to *State represented by Inspector of Police and Ors. v. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate* to highlight that disparaging remarks against investigating officers should be avoided. Consequently, the Supreme Court expunged the observations made in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the High Court's judgment against the police officials.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, stating that no writ of habeas corpus could be issued in this case as the Respondent's husband was in lawful police custody pursuant to a judicial order. The Court also expunged the scathing observations made by the High Court against the police officials, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness and the opportunity for the officials to explain their actions. The Investigating Officer was permitted to proceed against the Respondent's husband in accordance with the law, without any prejudice from the Supreme Court's decision.