SUPREME COURT: HABEAS CORPUS NOT MAINTAINABLE FOR ACCUSED DETAINED AFTER BAIL REJECTION:

The Supreme Court has overturned a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that directed the release of an accused individual through a habeas corpus petition, despite the fact that four successive applications for regular bail had already been dismissed. A Bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan allowed the State’s appeal and strongly criticised the High Court’s reasoning, describing its approach as one entirely unsupported by law and deeply troubling from the perspective of judicial propriety.

The case centres on Jibrakhan Lal Sahu, who was named as an accused in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case registered in Bhopal in 2021. He was arrested in December 2023, and a chargesheet was filed against him in February 2024. Thereafter, Sahu sought regular bail before the Madhya Pradesh High Court on four occasions. These applications were considered and dismissed at different intervals between January and May 2024. With all avenues of bail relief within the High Court exhausted, Sahu remained in judicial custody.

Subsequently, Sahu’s daughter, Kusum Sahu, approached the High Court by filing a habeas corpus petition. She contended that her father’s continued detention was unlawful, and she also asserted that the family’s financial limitations made it difficult for them to seek further remedies before the Supreme Court. On 3 October 2024, the High Court accepted this plea and ordered Sahu’s release upon the furnishing of a personal bond of ₹5,000. The High Court reasoned that Sahu’s custody had become illegal and that the circumstances justified interference through habeas corpus.

The State of Madhya Pradesh challenged this order before the Supreme Court. On 18 July 2025, while issuing notice, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s direction and observed that the manner in which the case had been dealt with appeared, at first glance, to be highly irregular. Despite this stay order, Sahu did not surrender immediately and eventually did so only on 25 October 2025.

While deciding the appeal, the Supreme Court conclusively set aside the High Court’s ruling. The Bench held that detention arising from a criminal proceeding, especially where multiple bail applications have been considered and rejected on merits, cannot be treated as unlawful custody. The Court emphasised that the High Court had, in effect, reevaluated the merits of the case and reconsidered matters already addressed during earlier bail hearings. It noted that the High Court had handled the habeas corpus petition almost as though it were an appellate proceeding against the rejection of bail, which, according to the Supreme Court, was impermissible.

The Bench expressed serious concern about the precedent such an approach might create. It observed that allowing habeas corpus to be used as a substitute for bail jurisdiction would undermine established legal procedures and risk bypassing statutory safeguards. The Court therefore clarified that such practices must be firmly discouraged to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system.

Since Sahu had already surrendered by the time the matter was decided, the Supreme Court concluded by clarifying that any future bail application filed by him must be independently assessed on its own merits by the appropriate court, without being influenced by the earlier habeas corpus proceedings or the High Court’s invalidated order.