### Writ of Habeas Corpus Inadmissible Against Detention Sanctioned by Valid Judicial Remand Order

The petitioner, Sonam Sahu, filed a writ petition seeking her release from custody, declaring her arrest as illegal detention and seeking compensation.

She alleged that police from City Kotwali Raigarh picked her up on 12.02.2026 without informing her of the grounds of arrest and failed to produce her before a Magistrate within the mandatory 24-hour period.

She further contended that the police forged the signature of her brother-in-law on the arrest memo to show procedural compliance.

An application challenging this was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) on 13.02.2026.

The State countered that the arrest was lawful, grounds were provided, and she was produced before a Magistrate within the statutory period.

1. Whether the petitioner's arrest and continued detention violated the mandatory constitutional and statutory safeguards under Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 57 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Whether a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable when a person is in custody pursuant to a valid judicial remand order.

The Court primarily applied Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution of India, which mandate informing an arrestee of the grounds of arrest and production before a Magistrate within 24 hours.

It relied on Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), prohibiting detention beyond 24 hours without a special order from a Magistrate under Section 167.

Furthermore, the Court applied the established principle that a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable only if detention is *ex facie* illegal; once a person is remanded by a competent Magistrate via a valid judicial order, the detention is not "illegal" unless the order lacks jurisdiction.

The Court observed that while the petitioner alleged procedural lapses and forgery, the State's records established that the petitioner was arrested for a cognizable offence and produced before a competent Magistrate within the statutory timeframe.

The Court reasoned that because a judicial remand order was in effect and had not been set aside, the detention was authorized by law.

Regarding the allegations of forged signatures on the arrest memo, the Court held that it could not conduct a "roving enquiry" into disputed questions of fact under Article 226.

It emphasized that such evidentiary matters must be agitated before the trial court or appropriate statutory forums rather than through extraordinary writ jurisdiction, which is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly when alternative remedies exist.

The Court answered that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be granted when detention is supported by a jurisdictional judicial order.

However, the Court clarified that the petitioner remains free to seek other statutory remedies regarding the alleged fabrication of documents before the appropriate forum.