JUDGMENT Ajai Lamba and Ravindra Nath Mishra-II, JJ. – This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing order dated 22.04.2016, Annexure 6, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Lakhimpur Kheri. As a consequence of quashing of the order the petition also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for producing and releasing the detenue/petitioner. 2. Perusal of the pleadings in the petition and appended documents indicate that Crime No. 60 of 2016 under Sections 363/366 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 has been registered at the instance of respondent No. 5. In the petition, it has been pleaded that the First Information Report is belated; in fact the prosecutrix had not been kidnapped, rather had gone willingly with the petitioner and got married to him; the prosecutrix has attained age of majority; prosecutrix got married to the petitioner as is evident from marriage certificate Annexure 2; during the course of investigation statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C) in which she has not supported the prosecution case and has demonstrated that she solemnized marriage with the petitioner/detenue of her free will and consent and wants to live with the petitioner; medical age of the prosecutrix has been found to be 18 years; custody of the prosecutrix was given to her father, however, she had gone to the house of the petitioner/detenue because she is married to the petitioner/detenue. 3. We have taken into account the fact that the petition has been filed through Goldy Raj, the deponent who is daughter of respondent no. 5, who is the alleged prosecutrix/victim in the criminal proceedings. The deponent claims to be the wife of the petitioner/detenue. 4. Prayer in this petition is that the petitioner has been kept in judicial custody in compliance of impugned order dated 22.4.2016 (Annexure 6), which is illegal, and be quashed. It has been pleaded that offence has not been committed, therefore, there is no occasion in law to keep the petitioner in confinement, hence, the petitioner is in illegal custody and is entitled to issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for release. Liberty of the petitioner cannot be curtailed because the petitioner has not committed any offence. 5. Liberty of the petitioner cannot be curtailed because the petitioner has not committed any offence. 5. Before we embark on the issue of considering the prayer of the petitioner for issuing the writ we would like to refer to the nature of the writ sought to be issued, and the circumstances under which it can be issued. 6. Habeas Corpus has certain limitations though it is a writ of right, it is not a writ of course. Writ of Habeas Corpus is a guarantee against any detention that is forbidden by law, but it does not necessarily protect other rights, such as entitlement to a fair trial. In the circumstances, if imposition such as internment without trial is permitted in law, then Habeas Corpus may not be a useful remedy. 7. A writ of Habeas Corpus is one of what are called the "extraordinary", "common law", or "prerogative writs", which were historically issued by the English Courts in the name of the monarch to control inferior courts and public authorities within the kingdom. The due process for such petition is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of non-authority. The official who is the respondent must prove his authority to do or not to do something. 8. A writ of Habeas Corpus is known as "the great and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal confinement", being a remedy available to the meanest against the mightiest. It is a summons with the force of a court order; it is addressed to the custodian (a prison official for example) and demands that the prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian to present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the custodian has lawful authority to detain the prisoner. If the custodian is acting beyond his or her authority, then the prisoner must be released. Any prisoner, or another person acting on his or her behalf, may petition the court, or a judge, for a writ of habeas corpus. 9. There can be no doubt that personal liberty is a precious right, therefore, the writ of Habeas Corpus provides a prompt and effective remedy against illegal detention. Any prisoner, or another person acting on his or her behalf, may petition the court, or a judge, for a writ of habeas corpus. 9. There can be no doubt that personal liberty is a precious right, therefore, the writ of Habeas Corpus provides a prompt and effective remedy against illegal detention. By this writ, the Court directs the person or authority who has detained another person to bring the body of the detenue before the Court so as to enable the Court to decide the validity, jurisdiction or justification for such detention. The principal aim of the writ is to ensure swift judicial review of alleged unlawful detention of liberty or freedom of the prisoner or detenu. 10. The writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative writ by which, the causes and validity of detention of a person are investigated by summary procedure and if the authority having his custody does not satisfy the court that the deprivation of his personal liberty is according to the procedure as established by law, the person is entitled to his liberty. The order of release in the case of a person suspected of or charged with commission of an offence does not per se amount to his acquittal or discharge and the authorities are not, by virtue of the release only on habeas corpus, deprived of the power to arrest and keep him in custody in accordance with law, for this writ is not designed to interrupt the ordinary administration of criminal law. (emphasised by us) (Vide judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No. 417 of 2008 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 583 of 2007) State of Maharashtra and others v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande). 11. On consideration of the law it is evident that personal liberty is a precious right, however, confinement for valid reasons with legal justification would not tantamount to denial of personal liberty, or illegal detention. 12. Article 21 of the Constitution of India is explicit in the sense that no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Under the circumstances, it is imperative for the writ petitioner claiming a writ of habeas Corpus to establish or indicate that his personal liberty has been deprived without following procedure established by law. 13. Under the circumstances, it is imperative for the writ petitioner claiming a writ of habeas Corpus to establish or indicate that his personal liberty has been deprived without following procedure established by law. 13. Procedure for detention of an accused in the course of investigation of a case, and trial process, and subsequently if followed by judgement of conviction and order of sentence, is ordinarily provided under the Cr.P.C. In the case in hand, it is evident that Case Crime No. 60 of 16 (supra) has been registered making allegations of kidnapping and of sexual offences against the petitioner. The petitioner in accordance with procedure established by law under Cr.P.C. has been remanded to custody vide the impugned order, during the process of investigation of the case. In such circumstances, it cannot be held by any figment of imagination that the petitioner is in illegal confinement or has been kept in custody without authority of law. 14. To plead that there is sufficient material available on record to establish innocence of the petitioner at this stage itself and, therefore, writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus be issued, would be a fallacy in law. At this stage, the petitioner might have a good case for grant of bail under the Cr.P.C., however, detention of the petitioner cannot be termed as illegal confinement without following procedure establish by law. It is not even the case of the petitioner that the court had no legal authority or jurisdiction to remand the petitioner in custody. 15. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the present case has been filed without there being any legal basis for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus. 16. So far as quashing of the impugned order is concerned, the petitioner would be free to avail the remedies against the impugned order, or to seek his release by way of applying for bail. In such circumstances, no ground for quashing of order dated 22.4.2016, Annexure 6, is made out in extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 17. The writ petition being misconceived is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.