Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Mr. Sujay Kantawala, Mr. Sajal Yadav and Mr. Shalabh Krishnan Saxena.
For the Respondents: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Mr. Anil C. Singh, Ms. Purnima Kantharia, Mr. H.S. Venegaonkar, Mr. Samar Kachwala, Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Ms. Chanan Parwani, Ms. Indrayani Deshmukh, Mr. Yash Momaya, Mr. Satya Prakash Singh, Mr. S.K. Shinde and Mr. J.P. Yagnik.

Based on the provided legal document, the following key points are evident:

1. Maintainability of the Habeas Corpus Petition: The Court has emphasized that a writ of habeas corpus is primarily meant to address illegal detention. Since the Petitioner is in judicial custody based on orders passed by a competent Court, and there is an alternative remedy available (such as filing for bail or revising the remand order), the Court has held that the petition is not maintainable (!) (!) .

2. Legal Validity of Custody and Remand Orders: The detailed and reasoned orders of remand passed by the Special Court demonstrate application of judicial mind and adherence to procedural safeguards. These orders have been considered to cure any constitutional infirmities, if any, in the initial arrest. Therefore, the custody of the Petitioner, as authorized by the Court, is deemed lawful (!) (!) .

3. Procedural Safeguards and Arrest Procedure: The Court has found that the arrest was carried out in compliance with the prescribed procedures under the relevant statutes, including informing the Petitioner of grounds of arrest, producing him before a Magistrate within the stipulated time, and following the procedures laid down in the applicable rules and statutes (!) (!) .

4. Authority of the Arresting Officer: The Court has determined that the arresting officer was duly authorized under the relevant provisions of the law, based on the notifications and rules in force. Even if there was an initial contention about the specific authority, the Court has concluded that the officer had the requisite authority to effect the arrest (!) (!) .

5. Cognizability of the Offense: The Court has clarified that, despite amendments, the offense under the relevant law remains cognizable, and the procedure for investigation and arrest prescribed therein is valid. The omission of a specific clause in the law does not automatically render the offense non-cognizable, especially when the legislative intent and the statutory scheme support the view that the authorities have the power to arrest without prior approval or FIR registration (!) (!) .

6. Procedural Compliance under the Law: The Court has observed that the procedural safeguards, including informing the Petitioner of grounds of arrest, producing him before a Magistrate within 24 hours, and following the rules for arrest and detention, have been substantially complied with. Any minor procedural lapses do not render the arrest illegal or void (!) (!) .

7. Legal Effect of Remand Orders: The Court has emphasized that remand orders, which are detailed and passed after application of judicial mind, serve to validate custody and cure any initial procedural irregularities. Orders passed mechanically or without proper application of mind are not sufficient to invalidate lawful detention if subsequent orders are well-reasoned (!) (!) .

8. Limitations of the Writ of Habeas Corpus: The Court has reiterated that the writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy when a person is detained pursuant to a valid order of a competent Court, even if there are procedural irregularities in the arrest process. The primary remedy in such cases is to seek bail or challenge the remand order through appropriate legal channels (!) (!) .

9. Medical Grounds and Interim Relief: The Petitioner’s claims regarding medical grounds for immediate release have been considered and rejected, as the Court found that adequate medical treatment is being provided, and the earlier bail applications on medical grounds have been rejected by the Courts. The Petitioner’s failure to pursue further remedies or raise these issues at earlier stages diminishes the likelihood of success on this ground (!) (!) .

10. Overall Conclusion: The Court has dismissed the petition, holding that the arrest and custody are lawful, procedural safeguards have been substantially followed, and the remedy of habeas corpus is not appropriate given the circumstances. The detailed judicial orders of remand and custody have been viewed as sufficient to uphold the legality of the detention (!) (!) (!) .

These points collectively establish that the Court considers the Petitioner’s detention to be lawful, procedural safeguards to be largely adhered to, and that the petition for habeas corpus is not maintainable under the circumstances presented.