Supreme Court Delivers Verdict in Habeas Corpus Case Involving Police Custody

The case of The State of Maharashtra v. Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee involves a significant legal issue regarding the writ of habeas corpus and its application in cases where an individual is in police custody pursuant to a remand order by a Magistrate. The Supreme Court was asked to adjudicate whether a writ of habeas corpus could be issued in such circumstances, as well as to address the harsh remarks made by the High Court against the concerned police officers.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated from the arrest of Rizwan Alam Siddique, who was implicated in a criminal case involving the illegal procurement and sale of call data records. On 24th January 2018, a secret tip-off led to the arrest of Mukesh Pandian, a private detective involved in selling call data records. During the investigation, further evidence suggested that Rizwan Alam Siddique was connected to the crime, which led to his summons by the police.

Despite agreeing to appear before the police, Rizwan Alam Siddique failed to cooperate fully, leading to his arrest. The police arrested him on 16th March 2018, and he was remanded to police custody by a Magistrate until 23rd March 2018.

However, Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee, the wife of Rizwan Alam Siddique, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay, seeking the release of her husband on the grounds that he was illegally detained, thereby requesting a writ of habeas corpus. The High Court issued an order granting the writ of habeas corpus and directed the police to release the husband of the petitioner.

Legal Issues in the Appeal

• Whether a writ of habeas corpus could be issued in cases where the individual is in police custody due to a remand order passed by the Magistrate in a criminal case under investigation.
• Whether the High Court was justified in making scathing remarks against the police officers involved in the detention.
• Whether the police officers were legally bound to release the respondent based on the High Court’s ruling, despite the Magistrate’s order for police remand.

Arguments by the Appellants

The appellants, representing the State of Maharashtra and the police officials, argued that:

• A writ of habeas corpus could not be issued for someone in police custody under a Magistrate’s remand order as the detention was lawful and judicially sanctioned.
• The police acted within their legal boundaries, and the writ petition should be dismissed because the detention was in accordance with the law.
• The High Court’s observations against the police officers were unwarranted and should be expunged, as they were made without giving the officers an opportunity to present their side of the case.

Arguments by the Respondent

The respondent, Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee, argued that:

• Her husband was illegally detained as the police had no valid grounds to continue his detention after the notice was served.
• While the police may have had initial grounds for his detention, their actions thereafter were unlawful, and he was entitled to be released based on the writ of habeas corpus.
• The High Court had correctly found that the detention violated fundamental rights and ordered his release accordingly.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the case, made several important observations:

• The Court noted that the respondent’s husband was in police custody based on a Magistrate’s remand order, which made his detention legally sanctioned under the law.
• There is a well-established principle that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge a lawful detention under a Magistrate’s remand order. The Court emphasized that habeas corpus is not meant for reviewing judicially sanctioned custody, which was the case here.
• The Court observed the inappropriate remarks made by the High Court regarding the police officials, noting that such comments should not have been made without affording the officers a chance to explain their actions.

The Court cited:

“In habeas corpus proceedings, the question before the court is not about the merits of the criminal investigation but whether the person is being illegally detained.”

Supreme Court’s Final Verdict