Ram Nivas vs The State Of M.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 11306 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ram Nivas vs The State Of M.P. on 19 November, 2025

                                                              1                               WP-15906-2025
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT JABALPUR
                                                        WP No. 15906 of 2025
                                               (RAM NIVAS Vs THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS )



                           Dated : 19-11-2025
                                 Shri Krishna Kumar Pandey - Advocate with Shri Siddharth S. Pandey
                           - Advocate for petitioner.
                                 Shri Vivek Sharma - Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1

to 4/State.

Shri Aditya Adhikari - Senior Counsel with Ms. Anannya Shree Adhikari - Advocate for Amicus Curiae.

This Habeas Corpus petition is preferred by the petitioner complaining illegal and unlawful detention of his brother Akash s/o Chatarbhuj in connection with Crime No. 44/2024 of police station Mahila Thana, Sehore under Sections 376(3) and 506 of I.P.C. and 5/6 of POCSO Act on account of dismissal of bail application B.A. no. 236/2024 on 27.06.2024 by IIIrd Sessions Judge, Sehore.

2. It is contended that the detention of his brother is arbitrary, violative of his brother's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the

Constitution of India, and amounts to custodial abuse of power.

3. As per the petitioner, before arresting petitioner's brother, arresting officer did not follow the procedure and did not inform the petitioner's brother regarding his rights and thereafter he was remanded to judicial custody and his bail application was originally dismissed by Sessions Court, and thereafter, by High Court thrice as withdrawn by order dated 22.11.2024

2 WP-15906-2025 passed in M.Cr.C. no. 40688/2024, 10.02.2025 in M.Cr.C. no. 662/2025 and 08.04.2025 in M.Cr.C. no. 8179/2025 and the freedom of his brother guaranteed by Constitution of India has been infringed as he possesses an inalienable right to oversee his legal defence and present his case effectively and by repeated denial of bail applications, resulting in his prolonged incarceration, fundamentally undermines this crucial legal entitlement.

4. Reliance was placed on the judgment dated 03.10.2024 of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 24337 of 2024 (Kusum Sahu vs. State of MP and ors.) whereby the coordinate Bench exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had ordered release of the detenue on bail, holding as under :

"This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the Order dated 23.01.2024 passed in M.Cr.C.No.58100/2023; Order dated05.04.2024 passed in M.Cr.C.No.9299/2024; Order dated 14.03.2024 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 10613/2024 and Order dated 29.05.2024 passed in- M.Cr.C.No.19661/2024.

2. The petitioner is daughter of Jibrakhan Lal Sahu, who is accused in Crime No.157/2021, registered at Police Station Bagsewania, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 of I.P.C. The said FIR is unnamed and has been registered against petitioner's father on false allegations, as stated in the present petition, of having committed Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust and thus, misappropriation of Rs.1,98,000/- of various investors while acting as Director of the Company, namely, Suvidha Land Developers India Pvt. Ltd.

3. The case of the petitioner herein is that the father of the petitioner is neither a Director in the aforesaid Company nor Managing Director nor has collected any money from any of the complainants.

4. Shri Amitabh Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the father of the Petitioner is in custody since the date of his arrest i.e. 12.12.2023. The successive bail applications have been filed and rejected by recording incorrect facts which are absolutely de-hors the record filed by the police in the form of charge sheet as well as the records of the erring company filed in support of the bail applications. It is averred that the father of petitioner had filed four bail applications seeking his release from illegal detention under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. which have been dismissed. The Order rejecting the bail applications of father of the petitioners are no less than illegal Orders of continuing detention. Hence,

3 WP-15906-2025 the present petition deserves to be allowed.

***** ***** *****

11. Thereafter, pursuant to filing of the charge sheet, second application for grant of regular bail was filed before the learned single Judge of this Court vide M.Cr.C.No.9299/2024 by disputing the submission of learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner was working as Managing Director of the Company and by quoting the scheme of doubling of the money deposited within a period of five years, cheated Rupees Two Crore Fifteen Lacs and Sixty Five Thousand from the innocent investors. However, the petitioner and her mother, being confounded by the contents of the Order, filed third application for bail vide M.Cr.C.No.10613/2024. But, this application also met the same fate as earlier, with the same observation recorded by the learned Single Judge. The fourth application also met the same fate.

12. Thus, the father of the petitioner had two options, one to file the present petition and the second to challenge the rejection of the bail Orders before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

13. It is not in dispute that the respondent/State failed to satisfy this Court on what grounds they made statement before the learned Single Judge that father of the Petitioner was Director/Managing Director.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has drawn the attention of this Court to page 124 of the petition, wherein Para-34 of the Order passed by Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) mentions the names of four Directors, namely, Shri Rajendra Karn Rajpoot, Shri Vinod Kumar Shankhwar, Shri Pardeshi Ram and Shri Jagdish Biswas. But the fact remains that the father of the petitioner is neither Director nor the Managing Director.

***** ***** *****

18. No doubt, against a bail Order, the higher Court can be approached. In the present case also, the petitioner could have approached the Supreme Court but a person who is having equity share of Rs. 6,250/- only and belongs to a lower strata of the society, has no courage/finances to approach the Supreme Court by engaging a private counsel; and is facing mental agony of rejection of multiple bail applications on the false averments/allegations, as apparent on the fact of the record by the concerned Police Station. Therefore, we find that since the father of the petitioner is in illegal detention, it is a fit case to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain this petition and pass orders.

19. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts of the present case, we hereby allow the present petition directing the concerned jail authorities to release the father of the petitioner forthwith subject to his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.5,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court."

5. The stand of the State was that since the corpus had been incarcerated by

following due process of law, therefore, a petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus would not be maintainable. Submission was made on 07.05.2025 that

4 WP-15906-2025 the Division Bench of this Court in Kusum Sahu (supra) had not correctly appreciated the scope and extent of powers of a Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while entertaining a petition seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus particularly, in a case where the detenue had been remanded to judicial custody and repeated bail applications had been considered and dismissed by the trial court as also the High Court.

6. Division Bench of this Court on 19.05.2025 noticing the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Col. Dr. B. Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Orissa and others (1972) 3 SCC 256, Talib Hussain vs. State Of Jammu And Kashmir (1971) 3 SCC 118, Kanu Sanyal vs Distt. Magistrate, Darjeeling & Ors (1974) 4 SCC 141 and Central Bureau of Investigation vs Motilal and ors. (2010) 15 SCC 782 respectfully with the view taken by the other Division Bench of this Court in Kusum Sahu (Supra) that if successive bail applications were dismissed and/or the detenue did not have the means to engage a private counsel for approaching the higher court the detention could be treated as illegal and Habeas Corpus petition could be entertained. The Division Bench while disagreeing with the judgment in Kusum Sahu (Supra) framed the following questions :

"(a) Whether the judgment of the coordinate bench dated 03.10.2024 in Kusum Sahu vs. State of M.P. (W.P. No.24337 of 2024) is per incuriam having been passed in ignorance of the judgments of the Supreme Court ?

(b) Whether a writ of habeas corpus can be issued merely because repeated bail applications are dismissed and/or the detenue does not have the means to approach the higher court ?"

5 WP-15906-2025

7. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that a Special Leave Petition was also filed by the State before the Supreme Court challenging the decision in Kusum Sahu (supra) being Criminal Appeal No.4710 of 2025 (State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kusum Sahu). Supreme Court in the said Criminal Appeal by judgment dated 03.11.2025 has set aside the judgment in Kusum Sahu holding as under :-

"15. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the High Court shows that the factum of rejection of four bail applications filed on behalf of accused/Jibrakhan Lal Sahu, father of the respondent, has been noticed. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/Kusum Sahu before the High Court was that the orders rejecting bail application of her father are no less than illegal orders of continuing detention. Though the rejection of bail by the High Court can be challenged before this Court, yet a habeas corpus petition was filed. Despite objection of the maintainability of the petition raised by the State, the High Court allowed the same. It is specifically noticed by the High Court that the orders passed by the High Court rejecting bail of the accused can be challenged before the higher court only. The facts of the case on merits were noticed and examined by the High Court and after going through the same and recording that the parties before the Court had no finances to approach the Supreme court and are facing mental agony, the High Court found that it was a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Finally, the Authorities were directed to release Jibrakhan Lal Sahu.

16. The facts of the case, as noticed above, in brief, indicate that the manner in which the case has been dealt with really shocks the conscience of this Court. It is a case where 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. The process followed is totally unknown to law. Lest the High Court starts following the impugned order as a precedent to scuttle the due process of law, to nip the evil in the bud, we hold that 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. In the case at hand, it is not disputed that Jibrakhan Lal Sahu, father of the respondent herein, is an accused in a criminal case registered against him in which chargesheet has also been filed."

8. Supreme Court in the said Criminal Appeal specifically held that the

6 WP-15906-2025 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. Supreme Court has specifically held that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Kusum Sahu cannot be treated as a precedent.

9. In view of the above and also the factum of setting aside of the judgement in Kusum Sahu and the observation of the Supreme Court that said judgment cannot be treated as a precedent, the questions referred are answered in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court.

10. Copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court as well as this order be circulated to all the Judges of the High Court at its Benches.

11. List the Writ Petition before the Division Bench on 20.11.2025.

                            (SANJEEV SACHDEVA)      (SANDEEP NATVARLAL BHATT)        (VINAY SARAF)
                               CHIEF JUSTICE                JUDGE                        JUDGE
                           m/-