Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 819
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Rukhmani Devi, W/o Yugeshar Ganjhu - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P. (Cr.) (Hb) (D.B.) No. 170 of 2025
Decided on : 11-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rajveer Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Mr. Deepankar, adv
A writ of habeas corpus cannot be maintained for individuals in lawful judicial custody due to a valid remand order, reinforcing the principles of lawful detainment under Article 22(1).
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 22(1) - Writ of Habeas Corpus - Maintainability of writ petition against an order of remand - Court held that where a person is in judicial custody by virtue of a lawful remand, a writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable - The petitioner submitted for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to approach a different forum regarding the order of remand. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 9)
(B) Judicial Custody - The court reiterated that continued custody under a lawful remand does not constitute illegal detention, hence, precluding the issuance of habeas corpus. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a writ after being placed in custody through a judicial remand. The maintainability of a habeas corpus writ under these circumstances was contested. The petitioner eventually requested to withdraw the petition to seek remedies before a different body.
Findings of Court:
The court adjudged that dismissing the petition as withdrawn would not affect the petitioner's rights to challenge the remand order subsequently.
Issues: The main question was whether a writ of habeas corpus could be maintained in the context of a lawful judicial remand.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the principle that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued where a person is in lawful judicial custody as a result of a valid remand order, emphasizing the necessity of the legal framework surrounding such custody.
Result: Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to approach the appropriate forum.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner argues for writ maintainability (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. state's objection regarding custody and writ (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. apex court's clarification on remand and writ (Para 6) |
| 4. petitioner may withdraw petition for remand challenge (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed with liberty to appeal (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
1. Mr. Rajveer Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued out the case at length in furtherance to his argument which was advanced as has been taken note in the order dated 4th March, 2025 to establish the maintainability of the present writ petition.
2. He has also placed bunch of judgments in support of his argument.
3. He has tried to impress upon the Court that even after the order of remand, the Writ of Habeas Corpus will be maintainable on consideration of the applicability of the fundamental right as conferred to the citizen of the country under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
4. A serious objection has been made by learned State counsel by citing one judgment rendered by three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & Others v. Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee reported in (2018) 9 SCC 745 wherein the issue was that if a person is in custody by virtue of order of remand having been passed by a court, then the Writ of Habeas Corpus will be maintainable or not?
5. Learned State counsel has referred paragraph 10 of the said judgment wherein the order of remand has been questioned by filing Writ of Habeas Corpus even at the stage when the said Rizwan Alam Siddiquee has been taken into custody by virtue of the order of remand passed by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction.
6. The Hon’ble Apex Court, by taking note of the judgment rendered in the case of Saurabh Kumar v. Jailor , Koneila Jail reported in (2014) 13 SCC 436 and Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in (2013) 1 SCC 314 , has reiterated the law in this regard that the case cannot be said to be of continued illegal detention but the incumbent was in judicial custody by virtue of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, which was in force, granting police remand during investigation of a criminal case, hence, no Writ of Habeas Corpus could be issued.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, upon this, has submitted that leave may be granted to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum for ventilating his grievance by questioning the order of remand which is being said by him that the said order of remand is mechanical in nature.
8. There is no opposition to that submission by the learned State counsel.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty is reserved upon the petitioner to assail the order of remand before the appropriate forum.
10. If the order of remand will be challenged, the dismissal of this writ petition will not prejudice the case of the writ petitioner.
11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
12. Pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
