A.L.DAVE, J.

Apprehending arrest in connection with an offence registered with Pethapur Police Station vide CR No.I-56 of 2012 for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 409 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the present petitioner preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.10303 of 2012 invoking the Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court making following reliefs:

“15. On the premises mentioned as above, the petitioner prays to Your Lordships that,

A) Be pleased to admit this petition.

B) Be pleased to quash and set aside the First Information Report being CR No.I-56 of 2012 with Pethapur Police Station against the petitioner.

C) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition be pleased to stay further order, proceedings in respect of investigation of CR No.I-56 of 2012 lodged with Pethapur Police Station.

(D) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.”

1.1 This petition was preferred on 11/07/2012. This Court passed following order on 17/07/2012 in the said petition:

“Notice to the respondents returnable on 7th August, 2012. Learned APP Mr.H.L. Jani waives service of notice for respondent no.1-State of Gujarat.

Ad-interim relief in terms of Para No.15c till then.

Direct service is permitted.”

2. Before that order was passed, the petitioner was arrested on 16/07/2012. The petitioner was produced before learned JMFC, Gandhinagar at 04:00 p.m. on 17/07/2012. The Police prayed for remand of the petitioner to police custody which was granted by learned JMFC upto 02:00 p.m. of 19/07/2012. The order granting ad-interim-relief in CRMA No.10303 of 2012 in terms of paragraph No.15c was served upon the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer, therefore, produced the petitioner before learned JMFC on 19/07/2012 at 11:00 O'clock as per his say in affidavit and the said production report appears to have been recorded by the learned JMFC on 11:55 a.m. on that day (Annexure – H). The petitioner then came to be remanded to judicial custody by order of learned JMFC on that very day and is in judicial custody as on today.

2.1 The petitioner in the meantime has preferred this petition for habeas corpus on 23/07/2012 before this Court and came to be heard on different occasions. The hearing is concluded today.

3. Learned Advocate Mr.Mangukiya for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's detention in judicial custody though by judicial order of learned JMFC, is illegal and nonest for the reason that the said order is passed in conflict with the order passed by the High Court in CRMA No.10303 of 2012 staying the investigation. Mr.Mangukiya submitted that this type of approach may lead to chaos in judicial system. Mr.Mangukiya submitted that a computer copy of the order passed by this Court in CRMA No.10303 of 2012 was shown to the Police as well as learned JMFC on 19/07/2012 and still this order is passed in sheer disrespect towards this Court's order. Mr.Mangukiya submitted that since the investigation is stayed, there is no investigation and in absence of investigation, learned JMFC could not have exercised powers under Section 167 (2) of the CRPC remanding the accused to custody may be Police or judicial and the factum of his having territorial jurisdiction will be of no consequence. Mr.Mangukiya submitted further that power of the learned JMFC to remand the accused to custody during course of investigation is eclipsed by order of this Court passed in CRMA No.10303 of 2012 and, therefore, learned JMFC had no jurisdiction to remand the accused to custody. The detention of the accused in custody is, therefore, illegal and, therefore, a writ of habeas corpus would lie. According to Mr.Mangukiya a writ of habeas corpus is the only remedy available to the petitioner for the purpose. According to Mr.Mangukiya on passing of order staying the investigation by this Court, the accused – petitioner could not have been detained and his continued detention in