The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of personal liberty and the procedural safeguards provided under Article 21 and 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Sections 57 and 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

ORDER S. C. SHARMA, J. – The petitioner before this Court, wife of one Pawan Kumar, has filed this present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (habeas corpus). The contention of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner was arrested in respect of Crime No. 1410/19, registered at P. S. Lasudiya. He was granted bail in respect of the aforesaid Crime Number on 24-2-2020. The bail was furnished, a release warrant was issued. However, he was not released as he was an accused in other criminal case, registered at Crime No. 526/2016. He again applied for bail in respect of Crime No. 526/2016 and he was granted bail by Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore on 5-3-2020 in respect of Crime No. 526/2016 and a release warrant was issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore on 6-3-2020 but the husband of the petitioner was not released and he was informed that there is a third criminal case also at Crime No. 1435/2019 and as no bail has been granted in respect of Crime No. 1435/2019, the question of releasing him does not arise.

2. The undisputed facts reveal that the detenu when he was in Jail in respect of Crime No. 1410/2019 and 526/2016, was arrested formally inside the Jail only in respect of Crime No. 1435/2019.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that the petitioner’s detention in respect of Crime No. 1435/2019 is illegal as he has not been produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest and, therefore, the petition preferred by his wife deserves to be allowed. It has been argued that the husband of the petitioner is aged about 68 years, he is not well and as the detention is illegal, the respondents be directed to release him forthwith. It has also been argued that the petitioner was a Director of the Company, he has resigned in the year 2011 and, therefore, he has been falsely implicated in the Crime i.e., No. 1435/2019 and at the time the crime was registered, he was no longer a Director as he has resigned on 10-2-2011. It has been stated that he was Director of the Company since 30-9-2008 to 10-2-2011. It has been argued before this Court that keeping in view the statutory provisions as contained under section 57 and 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as well as the Constitutional provisions as contained under Article 21 and 22(2), as the husband of the petitioner was not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours, the detention is illegal and an application was also preferred for grant of bail in respect of Crime No. 1435/2019. However, the learned Judge has orally informed the learned counsel that as the detenu is not in judicial custody, the question of entertaining the bail petition does not arise and in those circumstances the bail petition preferred in Crime No. 1435/2019 was withdrawn.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent State has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. His contention is that the husband of the petitioner was arrested in respect of Crime No. 1410/2019 and 526/2019. He has fairly stated that in both the cases bail orders has been passed and release warrant has been issued. However, his contention is that in respect of the Crime No. 1435/2019, the accused was arrested formally on 4-3-2020. He has also fairly accepted that the present petition was filed as Habeas Corpus petition on 11-5-2020 and the matter was heard on 13-5-2020 and the police has produced the accused detenu before the Magistrate on 15-5-2020 and, therefore, now the detention is not an illegal detention. His contention is that the accused was already in Jail, formal arrest was done on 4-3-2020 and merely because he was not produced within 24 hours, the detention cannot be termed as an illegal detention.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

6. In the present case, the husband of the petitioner is in Jail in respect of Crime No. 1435/2019. He is aged about 68 years, suffering from various ailme