The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a decisive ruling, dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by Manohar Lal, who sought his release from judicial custody. The court, led by Justice Kuldeep Tiwari, reinforced the legal principle that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be entertained when a person is held under a valid judicial remand order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Background of the Case
Manohar Lal, the petitioner, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 51, dated May 21, 2024, registered at Police Station Maloya under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. He was detained following allegations of his involvement in fraudulent activities. After his bail application was denied by the trial court, Manohar Lal moved a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arguing that his continued detention was illegal.
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Vineet Kumar Jakhar, contended that his arrest violated procedural safeguards, specifically the failure of the investigating officer to comply with Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which mandates the issuance of a notice before arrest. As a result, Manohar Lal argued, his remand and subsequent detention were unlawful, and he should be released.
Legal Issues
The core issue before the court was whether a writ of habeas corpus could be entertained when the petitioner was in judicial custody pursuant to a remand order passed by a competent court. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the initial illegality in the arrest, coupled with procedural lapses, rendered the remand order void, and thus, his detention was illegal.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari rejected the arguments put forth by the petitioner, holding that the habeas corpus petition was not maintainable. Citing several Supreme Court precedents, the judge emphasized that once a person is placed in judicial custody through a valid remand order by a competent court, habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge the detention unless the order suffers from “blatant illegality or lack of jurisdiction.”
Justice Tiwari made several key observations in the judgment, noting:
“A writ of habeas corpus is not to be entertained when a person is committed to judicial custody by a competent court unless the remand order is without jurisdiction or wholly illegal. Procedural lapses at the time of arrest do not invalidate the judicial remand that follows.”
The court referred to previous rulings such as Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling (1974), which held that an infirmity in the initial arrest does not necessarily invalidate subsequent judicial custody. The court also cited Manubhai Ratilal Patel Tr. Ushaben v. State of Gujarat (2013), where it was held that any challenge to the remand order must be made before a higher forum and cannot be contested through a habeas corpus petition.
In further elaboration, Justice Tiwari quoted the Supreme Court’s decision in V. Senthil Balaji v. The State, reaffirming that:
“Once an accused is remanded to judicial custody by a competent court, the legality of the remand cannot be questioned through habeas corpus, unless the remand order is devoid of jurisdiction or passed in an entirely mechanical or illegal manner.”
The court ruled that the remand order against Manohar Lal was made after due consideration of the facts and did not suffer from any legal infirmity. The detention, therefore, was lawful, and the habeas corpus petition was dismissed.
Justice Tiwari referenced a number of significant judgments to support the decision, including:
1. Col. Dr. B. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Orissa (1971): The court reiterated that habeas corpus cannot be granted if a person is imprisoned under a valid court order.
2. Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling (1974): This case established that procedural defects during the initial detention do not invalidate a judicial remand.
3. Manubhai Ratilal Patel Tr. Ushaben v. State of Gujarat (2013): It was held that habeas corpus petitions cannot challenge judicial custody unless the remand order is grossly illegal or lacking jurisdiction.
4. V. Senthil Balaji v. The State (2023): The court reiterated that once an individual is under judicial custody, challenges to the arrest or detention must be addressed in the appropriate judicial forums and not through habeas corpus.
The court ultimately dismissed the habeas corpus petition, finding that Manohar Lal’s detention was lawful under the valid remand order issued by the trial court. While the court acknowledged the petitioner’s concerns regarding procedural lapses during his arrest, it stated that such issues should be addressed in the bail hearing or other appropriate proceedings.
The court, however, granted Manohar Lal the liberty to raise the issue of procedural violations at the time of applying for regular bail.
Case Details:
– Case Number: CRWP-8774-2024
– Bench: Justice Kuldeep Tiwari
– Petitioner: Manohar Lal
– Respondents: Punjab and Haryana High Court and others
– Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Vineet Kumar Jakhar
