ORDER : 1. Mr. Rajveer Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued out the case at length in furtherance to his argument which was advanced as has been taken note in the order dated 4 th March, 2025 to establish the maintainability of the present writ petition. 2. He has also placed bunch of judgments in support of his argument. 3. He has tried to impress upon the Court that even after the order of remand, the Writ of Habeas Corpus will be maintainable on consideration of the applicability of the fundamental right as conferred to the citizen of the country under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 4. A serious objection has been made by learned State counsel by citing one judgment rendered by three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & Others v. Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee reported in (2018) 9 SCC 745 wherein the issue was that if a person is in custody by virtue of order of remand having been passed by a court, then the Writ of Habeas Corpus will be maintainable or not? 5. Learned State counsel has referred paragraph 10 of the said judgment wherein the order of remand has been questioned by filing Writ of Habeas Corpus even at the stage when the said Rizwan Alam Siddiquee has been taken into custody by virtue of the order of remand passed by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court, by taking note of the judgment rendered in the case of Saurabh Kumar v. Jailor, Koneila Jail reported in (2014) 13 SCC 436 and Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in (2013) 1 SCC 314 , has reiterated the law in this regard that the case cannot be said to be of continued illegal detention but the incumbent was in judicial custody by virtue of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, which was in force, granting police remand during investigation of a criminal case, hence, no Writ of Habeas Corpus could be issued. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, upon this, has submitted that leave may be granted to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum for ventilating his grievance by questioning the order of remand which is being said by him that the said order of remand is mechanical in nature. 8. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, upon this, has submitted that leave may be granted to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum for ventilating his grievance by questioning the order of remand which is being said by him that the said order of remand is mechanical in nature. 8. There is no opposition to that submission by the learned State counsel. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty is reserved upon the petitioner to assail the order of remand before the appropriate forum. 10. If the order of remand will be challenged, the dismissal of this writ petition will not prejudice the case of the writ petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 12. Pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.