H. N. SETH, J. ( 1 ) THROUGH this petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Noorul Huda alias Nanka petitioner has challenged his remand to custody by order dated 24. 11. 1983 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, and seeking his release from Central Jail, Naini, where he is said to be kept under so-called unlawful custody. ( 2 ) THE facts appearing from the petition, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit are as follows: The petitioner came to be arrested by the police of Police Station Cannington in connection with the murder taking place in the night between 17/18/8/1983. The petitioner alleged that he was arrested on 19/8/1983 from his house in village Khopa situated at a distance of 32 Km. From Police Station Cannington. However, the counter affidavit of J. N. Ram, Inspector Incharge, the then Station House Officer, P. S. Cannington, vouched the arrest of the petitioner on 20. 8. 1983 at 5. 30 p. m. from a place 1 km. from village Khopa which was said to be situated at a distance of 50 km. from P. S. Cannington. ( 3 ) APART from the above controversy regarding the actual date and time of arrest the petitioner claims that even if the arrest had taken place as alleged by the Opposite party then also the said arrest is hit by the provisions contained in sections 50 and 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 22 of the Constitution of India rendering his arrest and detention in custody unlawful and invalid. ( 4 ) SECTION 50 Criminal Procedure Code provides that: Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shah forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India provides that: No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of thet grounds for his arrest. ( 5 ) THE petitioners plea in para 3 of his petition is that he was never informed of the grounds of his arrest by the police inspite of repeated requests made by him immediately to the Police and it was only on 22. 8. ( 5 ) THE petitioners plea in para 3 of his petition is that he was never informed of the grounds of his arrest by the police inspite of repeated requests made by him immediately to the Police and it was only on 22. 8. 1983 that he was told of the same by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, when he was produced before him for the first time after his arrest. However, in para 3 of the counter affidavit of J. N. Ram be vouched as soon as the petitioner was arrested the deponent informed him that the petitioner was being arrested in connection with the murder of Abdul Badi in Crime No. 224 under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code of police station Cannington. ( 6 ) THERE seems to be no reason for us to disbelieve the above ascension made in the counter affidavit by J. N. Ram. Accordingly we hold that the above plea of the petitioner that his arrest was hit by non-observance of the provisions as laid down in section 50 Criminal Procedure Code and Article 22 (1) Constitution of India has no force. ( 7 ) ARTICLE 22 (2) of the Constitution of India provides that:every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without authority of a magistrate. Section 167 (1) Criminal Procedure Code provides: Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty four hours fixed by section 57 and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well. founded, the officer incharge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed and relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate. founded, the officer incharge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed and relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate. Section 57 Criminal Procedure Code runs as follows: No police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period that under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under section 167, exceed twenty four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrates Court,t ( 8 ) THE petitioner in para 4 of his petition has alleged that he was produced before the magistrate on 22/8/1983, as corroborated by copy of G. D. dated 22. 8. 1983, Annexure II, and, therefore, he was not produced before the magistrate within twenty four hours of his arrest and this violated the above provisions or section 167 Criminal Procedure Code and Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India, rendering his arrest and subsequent detention invalid. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, in para 3 of the counter affidavit of J. N. Ram it is vouched to the effect that after the arrest of the petitioner he was taken to Khopa where on his pointing out certain recoveries were made. It was couched that the preparation etc. of the necessary memos in connection with the arrest and recoveries took about three hours time and it was ultimately at 9 oclock in the night that petitioner was brought back from village Khopa to the Police Station concerned. It was then learnt that the main accused in the crime namely, Laddba, was likely to be available at village Kasia along with the looted property so the deponent along with the police force and the petitioner went to village Kasia where they reached at about 12 in the mid-night and effected searches of two houses where after it could be ascertained that Laddha had escaped. On learning from the petitioner of the likelihood of Laddha being available either in village Hatwa under Police Station Pura-Mufti or village. On learning from the petitioner of the likelihood of Laddha being available either in village Hatwa under Police Station Pura-Mufti or village. Begumgunj and Mundera within Police Station Dhumanganj the deponent, accompanied by the petitioner, visited those villages but could not lay hands on Laddha. Ultimately the deponent together with the petitioner returned to P. S. Cannington on 21/8/1983 at 9. 30 A. M. Later on at the instance of the petitioner he was taken by the deponent to the house of his younger brother in mohalla Roshan Bagh, City Allahabad to apprehend Laddha but Laddha gave a slip and could not be arrested. Ultimately the deponent took the petitioner back to the police station at 3-30 P. M. where after necessary papers were prepared and the petitioner along with those papers and a request of remand was sent to the court of C. J. M. at 4 P. M on 21/8/1983 for being remanded to the judicial custody. However, the learned magistrate was not available so no order of remand could be passed at that time. The police constable brought back the petitioner to the police station at 7-30 P. M. and reported that the learned magistrate was not likely to be available till the next morning. Consequently the petitioner was sent to the court of C. J. M. the next morning i. e. on 22/8/1983 at 9-20 A. M. from police station where after the learned C. J. M. after examining the papers including the case diary etc. remanded the accused to jail custody by the order and warrant of remand. ( 10 ) THE above facts deposed in the said counter affidavit of J. N. Ram do show the truth of the petitioners allegations that he was not produced before the magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest even if it be taken that he was arrested on 20/8/1983 as alleged by the Police. However, J. N. Ram, the arresting officer, has explained the circumstances which delayed the production of the petitioner before the learned magistrate for remanding him to judicial custody prima facie the circumstances as narrated by him do afford a reasonable explanation for the said delay which in the circumstances could not be helped. In this background we are of the view that the said delay which under the circumstances cannot be said to be unjustified, would not render the custody or detention illegal. In this background we are of the view that the said delay which under the circumstances cannot be said to be unjustified, would not render the custody or detention illegal. ( 11 ) BESIDES, there is entrances material in the petition itself which would indicate that if the above-mentioned custody or detention was illegal upto 22/8/1983 then it stood validated subsequently. In this connection the assertion contained in para 5 of the petition would be relevant. It reads as follows: That thereafter (22/8/1983) the petitioner was remanded on several dates and those orders are not impugned by way of this petition. ( 12 ) IN other words, the petitioner does not find any irregularity, illegality or invalidity in those subsequently remand orders inspite of the fact that be challenges the remand order dated 22-8-1983. This in a way would suggest and imply that if subsequent orders remanding the petitioner to custody are valid then any irregularity, illegality or invaldity in the previous order: remanding the petitioner to custody would be of no consequence. To put it otherwise, the previous illegal order remanding the petitioner to judicial custody would stand cured by subsequent valid remand order authorizing the custody of the petitioner. ( 13 ) THE petitioner then alleges in para 6 of his petition that on 14/10/1983 the petitioner was produced before C. J. M. Allahabad, who remanded him to custody up to 27/10/1983 despite the fact that the case diary was not placed before him. Annexure III is copy of the report dated 21-1083 of C. J. H. concerned which indicates that the order recorded on 14/10/1983 did not indicate the production of case diary before the magistrate on that date. The plea of the petitioner is that without perusal of the case diary the magistrate was not in a position to satisfy himself that further remand to custody was necessary with the result that the said remand order dated 14-10-1983. came to be passed technically on the mere coming of the police and was in violation of the provisions of section 167 Criminal Procedure Code and, as such, the said order of remand dated 14-10-198\ was invalid and the detention or custody of the petitioner in pursuance of that order is illegal. However, it is admitted fact that the charge sheet dated 15/10/1983 was submitted to the court on 27/10/1983. However, it is admitted fact that the charge sheet dated 15/10/1983 was submitted to the court on 27/10/1983. ( 14 ) WITH the submission of charge sheet on 27/10/1983 the stage of investigation came to an end and the case entered in the second stage of committal proceedings. In para 10 of the petition it is contended that after submission of the charge sheet on the record the C. J. M. took cognizance of the case and ultimately the petitioner came to be remanded to custody by order dated 24/11/1983 till 8/12/1983. We must say that when a valid order of remand is passed after submission of the charge sheet then all previous irregularities or illegalities occurring in connection with the orders of remand passed under section 167 Criminal Procedure Code stand cured as orders of remand then would be governed by the provisions of Section 209 Criminal Procedure Code. ( 15 ) HOWEVER, the petitioner in para 10 of his petition has challegned the validity of the order of remand dated 24/11/1983 passed under Section 209 Criminal Procedure Code the copy of which is annexure 5 by ascertaining that the said order of remand does not disclose the ground on account of which further remand was necessitated and the no mentioning of the reasons in that order of remand renders the continued arrest and detention of the petitioner illegal. The said order (Annexure 5) reads m, follows Accused present in custody. Co-accused are on bail. They may be summoned and their bail bonds (be) attached with the file remanded up to 8/12/1983. ( 16 ) TO our mind, the above order itself provides the reason for further remand and that reason is that the co-accused who were on bail were summoned for appearance which fact necessitated the further remand of the accused who was in custody. We, therefore, find no force in this contention of the petitioner also. ( 17 ) IN this connection the Full. Bench decision of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application 1 No. 3122 of 1983 Surjeet Singh v. State be referred to with advantage it was observed: In view of the normal meaning of the word custody, actual or physical imprisonment of a person both legal and illegal amounts to his being in custody. Bench decision of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application 1 No. 3122 of 1983 Surjeet Singh v. State be referred to with advantage it was observed: In view of the normal meaning of the word custody, actual or physical imprisonment of a person both legal and illegal amounts to his being in custody. By restricting the meaning of the word custodyt in Section Criminal Procedure Code to only legal imprisonment the normal meaning is obviously curtailed. It is not at all necessary for the harmonious construction of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to restrict the meaning of the word Tcustody in Section 309 (2) Criminal Procedure Code to legal imprisonment only. In fact, grave consequences follow if this restriction is placed on the meaning of the word custody for once the custody of the accused becomes illegal by his being confined in Jail without a valid order or warrant of remand due to Mistake of the Court it would become powerless to remand the accused to custody under Section 309 (2) Criminal Procedure Code and rectify its error. Even in cases where the accused is alleged to have committed on heinous offence and his being set at liberty is likely to lead to tampering of evidence or his absconding the Court would be bound to set him at liberty which is not contemplated by the Code of Criminal Procedure- If, on the other hand, custody is given its normal meaning of physical imprisonment the Court will have the power to rectify its error and make the custody of the accused legal by a valid warrant of remand under Section 309 (2) Criminal Procedure Code. In all criminal cases the accused is either in prison or is on bail after his arrest during the inquiry and kial. The word custody in Section 309 (2) Criminal Procedure Court in our opinion, there fore, means physical imprisonment as distinct from being on bail. Even if the accused is in prison after his arrest in a criminal case without an order of warrant of remand by a competent court he is in custody as distinct from being on bail. The word Tcustody, therefore, embraces both legal imprisonment as well as illegal imprisonment. Even if the accused is in prison after his arrest in a criminal case without an order of warrant of remand by a competent court he is in custody as distinct from being on bail. The word Tcustody, therefore, embraces both legal imprisonment as well as illegal imprisonment. ( 18 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the above-quoted decision only takes into account the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and does not take into account the constitutional provisions as laid down under Article 22 of the Constitution and, as such, the constitutional illegality cannot be cured by any subsequent order remanding the petitioner to custody. But we do not agree with this contention. The question of releasing a person from custody or detention authorised by any particular order of remand or detention order would arise only when that particular order of remand or detention itself is invalid or illegal. Since the last order of remand whereby the petitioner has been remanded to custody is a valid order we see no justification in ordering his release. In this regard, in our view, both the statutory illegality or constitutional illegality (meaning thereby the violation of any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any article of the Constitution of India relating to the arrest or custody) stand at par and the remedy of the petitioner or the so caned aggrieved person who regards himself to be the victim of illegal custody or detention in violation of statutory or constitutional provisions, if advised, may lie in claiming the damages. ( 19 ) IN view of the above discussion we see no force in the present habeas corpus writ petition which must be dismissed and is hereby dismissed Petition dismissed .