Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 1244
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. Anand Venkatesh, K.K.Ramakrishnan, JJ.
Keshaw Anand - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu, rep by The Secretary Home Department - Respondent
H.C.P.(MD)No.566 of 2026
Decided On : 27-04-2026
For the Petitioner: M/s.D.Geetha
For the Respondent: Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor
High Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 226 for Habeas Corpus where detenu in judicial custody via another state's remand order; cannot test foreign remand even if initial arrest lacked transit warrant – approach competent court.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Habeas Corpus - Jurisdiction - Detenu arrested in one state without valid transit warrant, taken into custody by force personnel lacking jurisdiction and handed to police from another state - Produced before magistrate there who, despite objections on illegal arrest, found prima facie grounds and granted remand under relevant procedure - High Court of arrest state lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain petition or declare custody illegal, as it would require testing validity of foreign remand order - Petitioner at liberty to approach High Court with jurisdiction over remand magistrate - Once remanded to judicial custody, Habeas Corpus not maintainable; challenge only via remand order scrutiny - Relies on Supreme Court precedents. (Paras 8,10,12)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Arrest and Remand - Subsequent judicial remand after considering defence objections on absence of transit warrant does not permit Habeas Corpus interference by court lacking jurisdiction over remand proceedings. (Paras 4,12)
Facts of the case:
Brother of detenu files Habeas Corpus seeking production from jail in another state, alleging unlawful interstate arrest without transit warrant, violation of constitutional rights, null remand, release and damages. Force personnel handed detenu to outstation police; magistrate granted remand noting prima facie grounds and directing future production.
Findings of Court:
Petition not entertained on merits due to lack of territorial jurisdiction; issue of illegal arrest and remand left open for appropriate forum.
Issues: Whether absence of transit warrant vitiates arrest, transit and subsequent remand entitling immediate release via Habeas Corpus from arrest-state High Court; scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 for out-of-state custody.
Ratio Decidendi: Post-remand to judicial custody, even assuming initial arrest irregularity, Habeas Corpus under Article 226 unavailable; court cannot sit in judgment over foreign magistrate's remand order lacking territorial jurisdiction - Directs remedy before competent court per precedents.
Result: Habeas Corpus Petition disposed without adjudication on merits, liberty granted to seek remedy elsewhere.
ORDER :
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the brother of the detenu for the issue of a Habeas Corpus to produce the body or person of the detenu namely Aditya Anand, S/o.Amit Kumar Deo (late), who, according to the petitioner, has been illegally confined in custody at Gautam Budd Nagar District Jail, Luksar, Uttar Pradesh and to set him at liberty. The petitioner has also sought for payment of compensation and damages to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- on the ground that the custody, arrest and transit of the detenu is illegal and contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1,3 to 6 and 11.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the detenu namely Aditya Anand was staying at Trichy District in Tamil Nadu. On 18.04.2026, the mother of the detenu received a phone call at about 11.58 am., stating that the said Aditya Anand has been arrested. The petitioner's mother informed about the same to the petitioner and thereafter, steps were taken to trace the said detenu and to provide him with legal assistance. Ultimately it came to light that the Railway Protection Force, Trichy Division had taken the detenu under custody and handed over the custody to the police officials, who had come from Lucknow, even without proper transit warrant.
4. The further case of the petitioner is that the detenu was produced before the remand Magistrate, viz., Magistrate of Gautam Budd Nagar and the learned Magistrate was informed on the side of the detenu that the detenu was illegally arrested without a valid transit warrant and therefore, the entire arrest and custody is illegal and is in gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned Magistrate had considered the stand taken on the side of the defence and objections raised on the side of the police and passed a remand order dated 19.04.2026 and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
“From the perusal of the case record, it appears that at this stage, there exist sufficient prima facie grounds for granting remand. However, in the interest of justice, the remand of the accused, Aditya Anand, son of Amit Kumar, in Case Crime No. 163/2026 under the aforesaid sections of the BNS and the CLA Act, is found appropriate to be allowed from 19.04.2026 to 21.04.2026. The learned counsel for the accused is directed that, if he wishes to file detailed objections or submit relevant documents in respect of the remand, he may do so before the competent court within two days. The Investigating Officer is directed to produce the accused in person before the competent court on 21.04.2026.
Order
The remand application of the accused, Aditya Anand, son of Amit Kumar, in Case Crime No. 163/2026 under Sections 191(1), 191(2), 115(2), 121(1), 121(2), 125(1), 351(3), 352, 61(2) of the BNS and Section 7 of the CLA Act, is hereby allowed from 19.04.2026 to 21.04.2026. Accordingly, the objections are disposed of. The Investigating Officer shall produce the accused before the competent court on 21.04.2026. The remand of the accused shall be treated under Section 187 of the BNSS. The Jail Superintendent is authorized to keep the accused in custody until the stipulated date.”
5. It is under these circumstances, the present Habeas Corpus Petition came to be filed before this Court mainly on the ground that there is an illegal arrest of the detenu without a valid transit warrant and therefore, the consequential remand of the detenu is also illegal and therefore, the detenu is entitled to be set at liberty and the detenu is also entitled for payment of compensation for illegal arrest in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. A mention was made before us today morning to move the case as a lunch motion and pursuant to the permission granted by us, the petition was numbered and listed before us during post lunch recess.
7. The learned counsel for the p
