1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for release of the petitioner by writ of habeas corpus and for compensation.

2. The petitioner figures as an accused in Dumraon PS Case No. 137/2002 under Section 396 of the Penal Code. On 8.10.2002 at about 3 PM sum of Rs. 10 lacs belonging to the State Bank of India, which was being carried in a jeep, was looted by seven-eight persons after assaulting the driver and the security guard. The security guard died in the occurrence. On the basis of statement of Vinay Kumar Sahay, a Clerk of the State Bank of India, Brahampur Branch, Dumraon PS Case No. 137/2002 was registered against unknown on the same day i.e. 8.10.2002. On 20.10.2002 the petitioner was arrested from his house, produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar and remanded to custody.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the arrest was illegal being in violation of the provisions of Sections 41 and 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code. His forwarding and remand were also illegal in violation of the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code. It is said that at 3 AM on 20.10.2002 he was arrested without being told the grounds of arrest and kept in the police lock-up where he was threatened and asked to confess which, however, he did not do, After more than 24 hours on 21.10.2002 at 2 PM he was taken to Buxar for his production before the CJM in handcuff without copy of the entries in the case diary. The CJM forwarded him to jail custody without stating in the order as to whether there was sufficient ground for his remand to judicial custody and without considering that there was no arrest memo or inspection memo or seizure list. All this was in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar V/s. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260, reiterated in D. K. Basu V/s. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416. His subsequent remand was also illegal. The CJM failed to consider his complaint against the concerned police officer and mechanically passed the order of remand. In any view, as no chargesheet was submitted within 60 days, he was entitled to bail in terms of proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code.

4. Shri Vyas Muni Singh made lengthy submission to substantiate the petitioners case about his arrest, remand etc. being illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and law laid down by the Supreme Court. He referred to different provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and decisions of the Supreme Court. In view of the admitted position that in the meantime chargesheet has been submitted against the petitioner on 15.1.2003 and, in fact, cognizance thereon has already been taken, it is not necessary to notice those submissions and deal with them. With the submission of chargesheet and taking of cognizance, the grievance as to illegality in the arrest etc. has become infructuous. As early as in 1953, in the case of Ram Narayan Singh vs. State of Delhi, (which incidentally was cited on behalf of the petitioner), it was observed that in habeas corpus proceeding the Court is to have regard to the illegality or otherwise of the detention at the time of return and not with reference to the initiation of the proceedings and in the facts of the case it was held that the material did show the date when the affidavit on behalf of the Government justifying the detention was filed. In Talib Hussain V/s. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1971 SC 62, the Court observed :

"In regard to the submission that the petitioner was arrested and deprived of his personal liberty long before the order of his arrest and this invalidate his detention, it is sufficient to point out that in habeas corpus proceedings the Court has to consider the legality of the detention on the date of hearing. If on the date of hearing it cannot be said that the aggrieved party has been wrongfully deprived of his personal liberty and his detention is contrary to law, a writ