Judgment : C. Shivappa, J. The petitioner is an advocate. He has filed this petition seeking for a direction to produce one Thiru Surla who is under judicial custody, before this Court and set him at liberty and also to award compensation of 15 lakhs for the sufferings, he had undergone. 2. In order to decide the prayer of the petitioner, it is necessary to set out few facts and involvement of the detenu in certain cases. The detenu Surla and others were arrayed as accused in Crime No.1395 of 1992, registered by F-2 Egmore Police, for an offence under Sec.307, I.P.C., alleging that on 19.5.1992 when Mrs.V.S. Chandralekha was on her way to attend her office, they made an attempt on her life by throwing acid on her body and face, Immediately after the occurrence, the driver of the victims car, Mr.Prem Kumar, with the help of the general public, apprehended one of the assillants, by name, Pandit Chokka More. After investigation, the case resulted in a charge sheet against four accused person, viz. Pandit Chokka More (A-1), Anna alias Annadurai (A-2), Sunil Damodar Pandy (A-3) and Surla alias Sudalaimuthu (A-4) before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, on 16.11.1992. The case was taken on file vide C.C.No.10619 of 1992. The detenu was produced before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai on 9.12.1992. The case was committed to the Court of Session on 11.11.1993 and it was taken on file vide S.C.No.178 of 1993. The detenu was remanded to judicial custody time and again. The victim Mr.V,S.Chandralekha, not being satisfied with the investigation, done by the State Police, approached the Apex Court for a direction for further investigation by the C.B.I. The detenu sent a letter to the Sessions Judge, stating that no confessional statement was made by him before any court and he was prepared to make a confessional statement. Based on this letter, the victim Mrs.V.S.Chandralekha prayed before the Apex Court that the confessional statement of the accused Surla may be ordered to be recorded. The Apex Court directed the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai to record the confessional statement of Surla alias Sudalaimuthu, and in his statement he implicated himself and others. Based on this letter, the victim Mrs.V.S.Chandralekha prayed before the Apex Court that the confessional statement of the accused Surla may be ordered to be recorded. The Apex Court directed the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai to record the confessional statement of Surla alias Sudalaimuthu, and in his statement he implicated himself and others. Ultimately, the Apex Court on 9.9.1996, directed further investigation by the C.B.I, and the C.B.I, took up investigation and filed a report on 6.10.97 stating that Surla has been falsely implicated and he was not present in Madras on 9.5.1992, i.e., on the date of occurrence. The accused persons in S.C.No.178 of 1993 were produced before the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Madras on 28.10.1997. When the Judge adjourned the matter by remanding them, they made an attempt attack the judge in the open court and the judge had a miraculous escape. On the complaint made by the said Judge, a case was registered in Crime No.25 of 1997 for offence under Secs.302 and 353, I.P.C, read with Sec.2(1) of the T.N.N.D.P. Act against the detenu and others and the detenu is now in judicial custody till 31.12.1997. 3. The detenu and the other accused in S.C.No.178 of 1993, on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, sought for bail in Crl.O.P.Nos.14239 and 14243 of 1997. The victim Mrs.V.S.Chandralekha also filed Crl.O.P.No.15615 of 1997, before this Court, seeking direction for further investigation. The learned single Judge of this Court rejected the prayer for bail on 8.12.1997 and dismissed the petition, keeping in view the antecedents of the accused persons and the conduct having jumped the bail and absconding for a long number of months and an attempt made on the life of the Judge before whom the case is pending and further opined, since the referred report has not yet been accepted he cannot claim for an unconditional release on the ground of illegal detention. The learned Judge keeping in view the stand taken by the victim in her counter-affidavit has held, the release would definitely jeopardize the interest of the prosecution and enable the detenu to flee from justice. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Karuppan, contended that when once the C.B.I, filed a report that there is no material against the detenu, from that moment his detention is illegal and he is entitled to be released forthwith. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Karuppan, contended that when once the C.B.I, filed a report that there is no material against the detenu, from that moment his detention is illegal and he is entitled to be released forthwith. He also maintained on argument that an accused person can be detained only when he is suspected of or accused of an offence. In view of the report filed by the C.B.I, when he is not accused of any offence, the accused is entitled to be released under Sec.167 (2), Crl.P.C. Thirdly, he contended that the order of the learned single Judge, refusing bail and ordering re-investigation is a nullity and to be ignored. Lastly he contended that the detenu was subjected to incarceration as an under-trial prisoner for over a long period of five years and therefore he is entitled to be compensated for such illegal detention. 5. The learned counsel, is support of his contention relied on a decision of this Court in A.K.Gopalan v. District Magistrate, Malabar A.K.Gopalan v. District Magistrate, Malabar 1949 M. W.N. 33 wherein this Court has taken the view that the liberty of the subject has always been considered question of gravest importance and no person can be kept in illegal custody for a single minute. The learned counsel, inviting our attention to another decision in Public Prosecutor v. Annadhan Annamalai and others Public Prosecutor v. Annadhan Annamalai and others 1953 M. W.N. (Crl.) 122 contended that where the arrest is illegal, the accused wrenching himself free is not guilty of any offence under the Indian Penal Code. 6. The learned counsel for the C.B.I. Mr.Rajamanickam submitted that in view of the rejection of the prayer for bail by the learned single Judge, his detention could not be construed to be illegal and in view of the order of this Court directing further investigation on the second statement under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. which requires further probe, his presence in custody is necessary and lastly contended that even how he continues to be under judicial remand under Sec.309, Crl.P.C. Therefore, his detention cannot be countenanced as illegal detention. 7. From these contentions of both sides the point for considerations in this petition are whether the detenu Surla is entitled for release and for compensation. 8. The first contention that when once report is submitted by the Police Officer, the detention becomes illegal is not correct. 7. From these contentions of both sides the point for considerations in this petition are whether the detenu Surla is entitled for release and for compensation. 8. The first contention that when once report is submitted by the Police Officer, the detention becomes illegal is not correct. When the report is submitted by the police officer, the court to whom the report had been submitted may accept the report, or hear the victim or order for an enquiry, if there are other materials before it. Where the investigation has been done by the police mala fide or not an proper lines, the aggrieved person can always seek remedy for proper investigation. If the Magistrate so feels, he can pass such appropriate order after hearing the victim and if the referred report is accepted then alone the accused could be discharged from the case. In the event of a protest to the report by the victim, he should commit the case to the Sessions Judge. If he finds the there are materials, the accused has to face the trial along with the other accused, till then his status continues to be that for an accused. That stage has not yet been resorted to by the court before when such report has been filed. Till such time, the court acts on the report, the accused is suspected of the of ensues or accused of the offence alleged and he does not cease to be an accused. The materials in the report may enable the accused against whom there are no materials to seek for discharge or to comple acceptance of the report. That does not mean, as the things stand today, he can claim the status of non-accused in the case. 9. The proviso to Sec.167(2) of the Crl.P.C. creates an indefeasible right in an accused person on account of the default the investigating agency in the completion of the investigation within the maximum period prescribed or extended as the case may be to seek an order for release on bail. It need not be pointed out that Sec.167 is a provision regarding authorising detention of an accused in custody during investigation. When once the investigation is concluded and chalan filed, the release on bail has to be worked out an a different ground. It need not be pointed out that Sec.167 is a provision regarding authorising detention of an accused in custody during investigation. When once the investigation is concluded and chalan filed, the release on bail has to be worked out an a different ground. Whether he is accused of an offence or suspected of an offence depends on the facts of each case and the materials before the court. Therefore, there is no merit in the conclusion contention that the detenu is entitled for the release under Sec.167(2) of the Crl.P.C. 10. In A. K. Gopalan v. Government of India A. K. Gopalan v. Government of India A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 816; [1966] 1 S.C.W.R. 449; [1966] 1 S.C.A. 527; 1966 S.C.D. 737: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 427 the Supreme Court has held thus: “It is well-settled that in dealing with the petition for habeas corpus, the court to see whether the detention on the date on which the application is made to he court is illegal, if nothing more has intervened between the date of the application and the date of hearing.” In Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 510 the Apex Court has held thus: “In a petition for habeas corpus writ, the earliest date with reference to which the illegality of the detention is to be considered if the date of filing the petition for such writ. Therefore, any defect in the legality of the detention of the petitioner of the petitioner prier to the date of filing the petition cannot affect the detention if it is legal on the date of the petition.” In Sanjay Dutt v. State through C.B.I., Bombay (II) Sanjay Dutt v. State through C.B.I., Bombay (II) 1994 S. C. C. (Crl.) 1433 the Supreme Court has held thus: “Even a habeas corpus application on the ground that there is no valid order or remand or detention of the accused to custody, has to be dismissed. If it is found that on the return of the rule, the accused is in custody on the basis of availed order of remand or detention.” In the instant case, in view of the rejection of the bail application by this Court, as per order in Crl.O.P.Nos.14239 and 14243 of 1997 on 8.12.1997 and in view of the order of this Court directing further investigation in Crl.O.P.No.15615 of 1997, dated 18th December, 1997 and in view of the remand till 31.12.1997 under Sec.309 of the Crl.P.C. the detention of Thiru Surla cannot be considered to be illegal, Therefore, we answer the first point in the negative holding that he is not entitled to be released on the ground that he is in illegal custody. 11. The contention that the order of the learned single Judge refusing bail and ordering reinvestigation is a nullity need not be countenanced by this Court forth simple reason that if he is aggrieved, the remedy is not before this Court. This bench is not sitting in appeal on the order of the learned single Judge refusing bail or ordering re-investigation. Therefore, we see no merit in the contention touching the legality of the order of the learned single Judge. 12. On the aspect regarding claim for compensation it is true that for contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the protection of which is guaranteed in the Constitution, compensation is an acknowledge remedy for enforcement and protection of such rights. Compensation can be awarded against a wrong doer for the breach of his public law duty, which is to be strictly proved by the aggrieved party, which as to be strictly proved by the aggrieved party to claim compensation. The relief in exercise of power under Art.226 can be granted only when it is establish that there has been an infringement of the fundamental right of a citizen and no other form of appropriate redressal by the court in the facts and circumstances of the case is possible. It is a sound policy to punish a wrong door and it is that spirit that the courts have moulded the relief by granting compensation that the victim in exercise of their writ jurisdiction. It is a sound policy to punish a wrong door and it is that spirit that the courts have moulded the relief by granting compensation that the victim in exercise of their writ jurisdiction. But in the instant case, the case is still under investigation, the report is yet to accepted and the detenu is not declared as a non-accused in the case in which he is arrayed as an accused by a judicial order and it cannot be said that there is no other form of appropriate redressal be the court, such a remedy can be worked put at a later stage, depending upon the judicial verdict that there is an infringement of fundamental right when a person is going the though the process in accordance with the procedure establishment by law and that too, when he is injudicial custody, being suspected of a crime and as and under-trial, He is circumscribed by his own act and by a judicial order being an accused in S.C.No.178 of 1992 and in a subsequent case registered against him in Crime No.25 of 1997. The petitioner has assumed infringement without a final judicial verdict and assumed that he has already been discharged without accepting the report and in the absence of establishing infringement of the right, there is no basis to claim compensation, that too, to claim Rs.15 lakshs. Therefore, we are of the opinion, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, that the detenu Thiru Surla is not entitled for any compensation as prayed for and we held the second aspect of the point for consideration against the detenu. 13. For reasons aforestated, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.