Short answer. No, he must be specific. Rule 102, Section 10 requires the return to state plainly whether the person is held in custody, and if so, the authority and true cause at large with a copy of the process relied on; a transfer must state to whom, when, why, and by what authority.
What the law says
If he has had the party in his custody or power, or under restraint, and has transferred such custody or restraint to another, particularly to whom, at what time, for what cause, and by what authority such transfer was made.
Rule 102, Section 10 — Contents of return. Read the full provision →
The baseline disclosure
The person making the return must state whether he has or has not the party in his custody or power, or under restraint — a clear yes-or-no on the central fact. This threshold statement is what everything else in the return builds on: it is not enough to describe procedures followed or to talk around the question. The officer or custodian must commit, on the record, to a direct answer on whether the detained person is presently in his custody, power, or restraint before the return addresses anything else.
If custody is admitted
Where custody exists, the return must give the authority and the true and whole cause thereof, set forth at large, with a copy of the writ, order, execution, or other process, if any, upon which the party is held — a full account, not a bare assertion of lawful custody. Attaching the underlying document lets the court verify, rather than simply take on faith, that the detention rests on valid legal process. A return that merely asserts the detainee is 'lawfully held' without spelling out the authority and attaching the process itself does not satisfy this requirement.
If the prisoner cannot be produced due to illness
Where illness prevents production, the return must state particularly the nature and gravity of the sickness or infirmity that makes producing the person dangerous. A general claim that the detainee is 'unwell' or 'unfit to travel' is not enough — the custodian has to describe the actual medical condition and explain, in concrete terms, why bringing the person before the court would endanger their life or health, so the court has a real basis to evaluate the claim rather than accept it on assertion alone.
If custody was transferred to someone else
A claimed transfer of custody is not accepted at face value; the return must state particularly to whom, at what time, for what cause, and by what authority such transfer was made — a transfer cannot be used to dodge accountability for the restraint. Requiring all four details closes off the obvious shortcut of naming a vague third party and stopping there: the court can trace exactly where the detainee went, when, on what basis, and under whose authority, and can then direct the writ to that person if custody genuinely moved.
Related provisions
- Rule 102, Section 10 — Contents of return
- Rule 102, Section 9 — Defect of form
- Rule 102, Section 11 — Return to be signed and sworn to