Judgment NAGENDRA RAI, J. 1. The petitioner, an accused in Shri Krishnapuri P.S. Case No. 202 of 1999, registered under Ss. 498-A, 307, 323, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has filed the present writ application for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for his release from unlawful detention perpetrated by order of remand dated 9-10-1999, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna (respondent No. 3). 2. Respondent No. 6 Smt. Annu Singh alias Anamika Priyadarshini, daughter of Dr. Y. K. Sudarshan (respondent No. 7), was married with the son of the petitioner, namely, Sanjay Kumar on 31-1-1996, which was solemnized at Patna. Initially, there was a good relationship between them, but latter on the relationship between them became strained and a matrimonial case bearing No. 151 of 1999 has been filed by the husband for divorce on the ground of cruelty, which is pending before the Family Court, Patna. Respondent No. 6 lodged a written report before the Officer-in-charge, Shri Krishnapuri Police Station on 1-10-1999 at 8-30 p.m. alleging, inter alia, that after the marriage was performed, initially demands were made by her father-in-law, which her father fulfilled, but later on when the demands increased and she laid protest, she was subjected to assault and harassment by her in-laws as well as her husband. On 28-8-1999, while her husband was posted at Hazaribagh and she was with him, her husband asked her to sign a paper and on refusal, she was assaulted and she informed about the said fact to the DIG, and the Commissioner of the Division. On 29-9-1999 at 8 a.m. her mother-in-law also telephoned her from Patna, and threatened her to sign the paper. Thereafter, her husband also persuaded to do the same and on refusal, again she was assaulted brutally by her husband and at about 10-30 p.m. In the night, she was driven out of the house along with her minor daughter and on a vehicle arranged by the DIG, Hazaribagh, she came to Patna and got herself examined by a Doctor and on 30-9-1999, a threat came from the house of family members of her husband that if a case would be lodged, she and her daughter would be killed. 3. 3. The Officer-in-charge, Shri Krishnapuri Police Station (respondent No. 2) on the basis of the said written report registered a case being Shri Krishnapuri P.S. Case No. 202 of 1999 under the aforesaid sections, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ application. 4. According to the petitioner, he was arrested on 8-10-1999 at 7 p.m. by the Police and neither any reason was disclosed with regard to his arrest nor was any opportunity given to him to inform his relation about the arrest and he was brought at the Police Station and kept there in the night and was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, along with a forwarding report on 9-10-1999 and, thereafter, he was remanded to the judicial custody till 23-10-1999. The petitioner also filed a petition at the time of his production before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for bail, wherein it was stated that the present case instituted against him was a false one and the same was instituted because of filing of a divorce case by his son against respondent No. 6 and there was no reasonable ground for believing that he had committed the alleged crime. A copy of the said petition has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the main writ application. It is further stated on behalf of the petitioner that the remand itself was illegal as neither any grounds for arrest was given to the petitioner at the time of his arrest nor was he allowed to contact his relation or lawyer and the remand was also in breach of the provisions contained in S. 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), as there was nothing to show that the accusation or information against him was well-founded. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Investigating Officer, wherein it is stated that the case was instituted on the information given by Smt. Annu Singh and during investigation, the case was fully supported by the witnesses and the petitioner was arrested in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two points, firstly, that the detention of the petitioner by remand order dated 9-10-1999 is illegal as nothing has been indicated therein to justify remand u/S. 167 of the Code. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two points, firstly, that the detention of the petitioner by remand order dated 9-10-1999 is illegal as nothing has been indicated therein to justify remand u/S. 167 of the Code. Secondly, he submitted that the Police has no unfettered or arbitrary power to arrests a person only on the ground that he is alleged to have committed a non-bailable offence. The arrest of the petitioner, on the ground of his having been made an accused in a non-bailable case was wholly unjustified and the requirements of law, including the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Kumar V/s. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1994 SC 1349 : (1994 Cri LJ 1981) and D. K. Basu V/s. State of West Bengal, reported in 1997 (1) SCC 406 : (1997 Cri LJ 743) were not followed; inasmuch as neither the grounds of arrest were disclosed to the petitioner nor was he afforded any opportunity to contact his relation or lawyer. 7. Learned counsel for the State submitted that admittedly the petitioner has been released on bail and as such his prayer for writ of habeas corpus does not survive at all. He also submitted that the law does not require that reason is to be assigned by the Magistrate at the time of remand. Allegations in the first information report and the gist of evidence given in the forwarding report satisfied the Chief Judicial Magistrate that the accusation was well-founded and, accordingly, the Magistrate remanded the petitioner to the judicial custody. The requirements of law at the time of arrest were fully complied with and it is demonstrated by the fact that when the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate, he did not complain of any ill-treatment or violation of any statutory provision or direction of the Apex Court. The petition, which is stated to have been filed by him on 9-10-1999 (Annexure-5) was as a matter of fact filed subsequently on 11-10-1999 as is evident from the order-sheet of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the grounds taken therein with regard to non-carrying out directions given in the aforesaid two cases, appear to have been asserted subsequently without any basis. 8. 8. In a writ of habeas corpus, legality or otherwise of the detention has to be determined at the time of return and not at the time of initiation of the proceedings (See Ram Narayan Singh V/s. State of Delhi, AIR 1953 SC 277 : 1953 Cri LJ 1113). Admittedly, when the matter was being taken up for final disposal, the petitioner has already been released on bail by a competent Court and as such his prayer for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus does not survive for adjudication at all. However, at this stage, I would like to state that the submission, advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the absence of the reason at the time of remand will vitiate the order of remand, is wholly unfounded and this point is no longer res integra. Even recently, the Apex Court in the case of Kanti Bhadra Shah V/s. State of West Bengal, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 722 : (2000 Cri LJ 746) held that a detailed order may be passed in a criminal case for culminating the proceedings but it is quite unnecessary to write detailed orders at other stages, such as issuing processes, remanding the accused to custody, framing of charges, passing over to next stages in the trial. 9. Thus, if the Magistrate has not assigned any reason at the time of remand then on that ground remand order itself would not be invalidated. The Court will see the materials on the record to find out as to whether the ground of remand exists or not. In this case, the allegation was also made by the victim lady against the petitioner. The forwarding letter, as appears, contained the details of the allegations and the materials and as such the remand of the petitioner was a valid one and his detention was not illegal by virtue of the order of remand passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 9-10-1999. 10. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his right or personal liberty, except according to the procedure established by law. It has been held by the Apex Court that the expression life or personal liberty includes the right to live with human dignity. 10. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his right or personal liberty, except according to the procedure established by law. It has been held by the Apex Court that the expression life or personal liberty includes the right to live with human dignity. Article 22 gives protection against the arrest and detention and provides that no person arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed of the grounds of such arrest and he shall not be denied the right to consult and defend himself by a legal practitioner of his choice. Article 22 further provides that the arrested person, who is detained in Police custody, shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate within a period of 24 hours of such arrest excluding the time taken in journey for his production from the place of arrest to the Court of the Magistrate. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, also contains a detailed provision with regard to arrest of a person and his production before the Magistrate. Sec. 41 of the Code confers power on the Police Officer to arrest a person in the circumstances enumerated therein. Sec. 50 enjoins every Police Officer arresting any person without warrant to inform him about the particulars of the offence and the grounds for such arrests. The Police Officer is also enjoined to inform the arrested person that he is entitled to be released on bail. Sec. 57 embodies the requirement of clause (2) of Art. 22 of the Constitution that the person has to be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest excluding the time taken in journey. 11. Thus, enough constitutional safeguards have been provided to the citizens to protect life and personal liberty. The Police has no unfettered and uncanalised power to arrest any person in a mechanical way. 11. Thus, enough constitutional safeguards have been provided to the citizens to protect life and personal liberty. The Police has no unfettered and uncanalised power to arrest any person in a mechanical way. The arrest has to be made by the Police without warrant in the circumstances enumerated in the Code and, thereafter, the Police cannot detain the arrested person more than 24 hours of his arrest and he has to produce the person before the nearest Magistrate and it is for the Magistrate to decide under S. 167 of the Code as to whether there should be further remand, which may be either Police remand or judicial remand depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the prayer for Police remand made by the Police. 12. The Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Kumar (1994 Cri LJ 1981) (supra), held that the arrestee has a fundamental right to have some one informed about the arrest and also to consult privately with a lawyer. It was further held as follows (at page 1986) : "No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the Police Officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The Police Officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for the Police Officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and, perhaps, in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness of bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter." 13. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter." 13. In the case of D. K. Basu (1997 Cri LJ 743) (supra), the Apex Court having noticed constitutional provisions contained in Art. 21 and 22 of the Constitution safeguarding the life and personal liberty of the citizen and also having taken note of the provision contained in the Code providing protection to the personal liberty, dignity and basic human right of the citizen, issued directions to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made as preventive measures. These directions were in addition to the constitutional requirements guaranteed under Arts. 21 and 22 of the Constitution and statutory safeguards provided under the Code. The said directions are as follows (at page 754-755 of Cri LJ) :- "(1) The Police Personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designation. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register. (2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest. (3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a Police station or interrogation centre or other lock up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee. (4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the Police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of eight to twelve hours after the arrest. (5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained. (6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names, and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is. (7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The Inspection Memo must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee. (8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the State or Union territory concerned. Director, Health Services should prepare such a panel for all Tehsils and districts as well. (9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the Illaka Magistrate for his record. (10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation. (11) A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within twelve hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board." 14. (11) A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within twelve hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board." 14. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of arrest the Police Officer did not inform the grounds of arrest nor did he permit him to consult his relation and as such the directions given by the Apex Court in the said two cases were violated. 15. It is difficult to accept the aforesaid submissions. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was arrested in accordance with law. The order-sheet of the Chief Judicial Magistrate shows that when the petitioner was produced before him, he did not complain of anything against the police. If the said directions were not complied with, then he should have stated the same before the Magistrate at the time of his production. The assertion of the petitioner that on the same day these facts were stated in the petition, which was handed over to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, cannot be accepted for the reason that the said petition, which was in substance a bail petition, wherein assertion regarding violation of the aforesaid directions of the Apex Court at the time of arrest was made, was filed before the Court on 11-10-1999 i.e. after two days of the arrest of the petitioner. Thus, the said assertion, which was made subsequently and not at the time when the petitioner was produced, appears to be an afterthought and on that ground no action can be taken against the Police Officer for violation of the directions given in the case of D. K. Basu (supra). 16. For the reasons aforementioned, I find no merit in this application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, J. 17 I agree. Application dismissed.