Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Mishra, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.K.Mishra, counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is an accused in First Information Report No. 62 of 2007 lodged on 6.9.2007 at Police Station Belsund. It is the case of the petitioner that although he was arrested on 6.9.2007 but he was neither disclosed with grounds and particulars of arrest nor he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest. According to the petitioner, he was produced before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 11.9.2007 and that renders his detention unlawful. 3. Counsel for the petitioner strongly relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sri Arbind Kumar V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2005 1 PLJR 117, in support of his contention that non-production of the petitioner before Magistrate within 24 hours renders his continuous detention illegal being violative of Article 22 of the Constitution of India irrespective of the fact that subsequently an order of remand came to be passed by the Magistrate. He also placed reliance upon an order of this court dated 19.3.2008 passed in the case of Mahesh Kumar V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors., Cr.WJC. No.190 of 2008. In support of his contention that grounds and particulars of arrest were not disclosed to the petitioner at the time of arrest until his production before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi, renders the petitioners detention illegal, counsel for the petitioner relied upon a Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sher Bahadur Singh V/s. State of U.P. & Ors., 1994 0 CRLL 720. Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Kumar V/s. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 1349 , and D.K. Basu V/s. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610 , in support of his proposition that the petitioners detention was violative of Sections 15, 15A, 57, 58, 167, 174 and 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. We are afraid that the contentions advanced by counsel for the petitioner overlook the factual matrix of the case. It is not in dispute that after his arrest on 6.9.2007, the petitioner was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi on 11.9.2007. 4. We are afraid that the contentions advanced by counsel for the petitioner overlook the factual matrix of the case. It is not in dispute that after his arrest on 6.9.2007, the petitioner was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi on 11.9.2007. It is also not in dispute that on that date the order of remand came to be passed by that court and subsequently the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet to the concerned court based on which cognizance of an offence u/s. 304B has been taken against the petitioner and the petitioner has been committed to the court of Sessions and the concerned trial court has now framed charge against the petitioner. In the backdrop of these facts, none of the decisions cited by the counsel for the petitioner has any application and the petitioners detention by no stretch of imagination can be said to be illegal as he is confined to judicial custody under the orders of the court of competent jurisdiction. 5. In view of the facts indicated above, we do not deem it necessary to deal with various decisions cited by the counsel at Bar. As already indicated above, none of these decisions has application to the fact situation of the present case. 6. Criminal writ petition is, accordingly, disimissed.