Recently, the Supreme Court set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had released an accused through a habeas corpus petition, holding that custody pursuant to rejected bail applications cannot be termed “unlawful detention.” In a matter where four successive bail pleas had already been dismissed, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s approach “shocked the conscience of this Court” and amounted to an exercise unknown to law.
Brief Facts:
The case concerns an accused facing prosecution for cheating and criminal breach of trust, who was arrested following registration of a criminal case. After his arrest, he filed multiple bail applications before the High Court, all of which were dismissed. Thereafter, instead of challenging the bail orders before a higher court, the accused’s daughter filed a habeas corpus petition, alleging unlawful custody. The High Court allowed the writ and ordered his release on personal bond. The State challenged this order before the Supreme Court.
Contentions:
The State argued that the order of release passed by the High Court was fundamentally without jurisdiction. It submitted that lawful judicial custody pursuant to an FIR and rejected bail applications cannot be termed illegal custody warranting a writ of habeas corpus. It was further argued that the High Court had virtually sat in appeal over its earlier bail orders and created a mechanism foreign to established criminal procedure.
Whereas, the counsel for the respondent conceded that the procedure adopted was irregular, though he submitted that the accused’s detention had caused hardship. He stated that co-accused persons in the same case had been granted regular bail and prayed that similar relief be considered for the accused.
Observations of the Court:
The Court expressed strong disapproval of the High Court’s approach. After noting the sequence of four rejected bail applications, the Court held that a habeas corpus petition cannot be used as a substitute for bail proceedings. Referring to the High Court’s reasoning, the Bench observed that the entire process “really shocks the conscience of this Court” and highlighted that the High Court had examined the merits of the case as if it were hearing an appeal against bail rejection.
Reproducing its key finding, the Court stated, “It is a case where the accused was arrested and filed four bail applications before the High Court, which were rejected. Despite this, in a habeas corpus petition filed by his daughter, his custody has been held to be unlawful and he was directed to be released while examining the case on merits as if the Court was hearing appeal against the order rejecting the bail application.” Emphasising the legal position, the Court made it clear, “The process followed is totally unknown to law… custody of an accused in a criminal case registered against him cannot be held to be unlawful especially when his bail applications have been dismissed.”
It further noted that such an order, if left unchecked, might be treated as a precedent to bypass the established bail process.
The decision of the Court:
Allowing the State’s appeal, the Apex Court set aside the High Court’s order granting release through a habeas corpus petition. The Court clarified that the accused is already in custody, and any future bail application filed by him shall be considered independently on its own merits by the competent court.
Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Kusum Sahu
Case No.: SLP (Crl) No.10491 of 2025
Coram: Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Manmohan
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. V.V.V. Pattabhiram (D.A.G.), Mrinal Gopal Elker (AOR), Amit Sharma
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Raghvendra Kumar (AOR), Devvrat Singh
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
