Introduction:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Haji Abdul Rajjak v. State of Madhya Pradesh (WP-27476-2025), delivered an important judgment clarifying the scope of the writ of habeas corpus when a person is in custody pursuant to multiple criminal cases. The Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen held that where an individual is under statutory arrest arising from duly registered First Information Reports (FIRs) disclosing cognizable offences, a writ of habeas corpus cannot be invoked merely on the allegation that authorities are attempting to keep the individual continuously incarcerated. The Court emphasized that when detention is backed by lawful criminal proceedings, the proper remedy lies in seeking bail before the competent court rather than invoking constitutional jurisdiction for release.
The case arose from a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Haji Abdul Rajjak, who alleged systematic misuse of preventive detention laws and criminal proceedings by the State authorities. According to the petitioner, the State had repeatedly employed preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA), and subsequently registered multiple criminal cases to ensure that he remained behind bars indefinitely despite securing relief in some proceedings.
The petitioner’s legal journey began in August 2021 when he was arrested in connection with an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code relating to an alleged attempt to murder. Following this arrest, authorities passed preventive detention orders against him on three separate occasions under the NSA in August 2021, April 2022, and January 2023. The petitioner pointed out that all three detention orders were eventually revoked because they failed to receive approval from the Advisory Board constituted under the NSA.
Despite the revocation of these detention orders, the petitioner remained in custody due to various criminal cases registered against him. He contended that several FIRs were lodged after he had already been incarcerated and related to incidents that allegedly occurred prior to his arrest. This, according to him, demonstrated a deliberate and coordinated effort by the State to deprive him of liberty indefinitely.
The case therefore presented a significant constitutional question concerning the relationship between preventive detention, ordinary criminal prosecution, personal liberty under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, and the extraordinary remedy of habeas corpus. It also required the Court to determine whether repeated criminal proceedings could convert an otherwise lawful detention into one that could be challenged through constitutional remedies.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Mohammad Ali along with Advocates Sharik Akeel Farooqui and Ahmad Shahid Hushain, argued that the State had engaged in a pattern of conduct aimed at circumventing constitutional protections available to citizens. It was contended that although the preventive detention orders under the NSA had repeatedly failed to withstand statutory scrutiny and were ultimately revoked, the authorities resorted to successive criminal prosecutions to achieve the same result indirectly.
The petitioner emphasized that his continued incarceration was not a consequence of any single criminal proceeding but rather the cumulative effect of numerous FIRs registered over a period of time. According to the petitioner, many of these cases pertained to incidents that allegedly occurred before his initial arrest. Yet, they were registered only after he had already been taken into custody. This sequence of events, it was argued, strongly suggested mala fide intentions and an abuse of state power.
Counsel further submitted that the repeated institution of criminal proceedings amounted to a violation of Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22 of the Constitution of India. It was argued that constitutional guarantees protecting individual liberty cannot be rendered meaningless through a strategy of perpetual prosecution. The petitioner maintained that authorities had effectively created a situation where his release became impossible regardless of the outcome of individual cases.
The petitioner also alleged procedural irregularities in relation to his arrest and detention. It was contended that he was not adequately informed of the grounds on which various proceedings were initiated against him. Such conduct, according to the petitioner, undermined the constitutional safeguards designed to protect individuals against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
In support of his contentions, the petitioner relied upon judicial precedents, particularly the Supreme Court’s observations in Binay Kumar v. State of Jharkhand. The petitioner argued that the concerns expressed by the Supreme Court regarding continuous incarceration through successive legal proceedings were directly applicable to his case. According to him, the pattern of repeated prosecutions reflected an attempt to keep him imprisoned irrespective of the merits of individual cases.
The petitioner therefore sought multiple reliefs. The principal relief was the issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing his production before the Court and securing his release. He contended that his continued detention, viewed in its entirety, was unconstitutional and amounted to an abuse of legal process.
The State of Madhya Pradesh, represented by Advocate General Prashant Singh and Additional Advocate General Bramhadatt Singh, strongly opposed the petition. The State argued that the petitioner’s challenge fundamentally misunderstood the scope of habeas corpus jurisdiction.
The State submitted that all preventive detention orders challenged by the petitioner had already been revoked and therefore no preventive detention order was presently operating against him. Consequently, the foundation of the petitioner’s challenge no longer existed.
The State emphasized that the petitioner’s present incarceration was solely attributable to criminal cases registered under ordinary criminal law. His custody was based upon statutory arrests arising from FIRs disclosing cognizable offences and was subject to judicial oversight through the criminal justice system. Therefore, his detention could not be characterized as unlawful.
Relying heavily upon the Supreme Court judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kusum Sahu, the State argued that habeas corpus is unavailable where custody arises from judicial or statutory processes. Merely because an accused person believes that the prosecution is malicious or excessive does not convert lawful custody into illegal detention.
The State further contended that granting habeas corpus in such circumstances would effectively bypass the established framework governing bail and criminal proceedings. Questions relating to the sufficiency of evidence, propriety of arrests, or entitlement to release are matters that fall within the jurisdiction of criminal courts and cannot ordinarily be examined through a writ petition seeking habeas corpus.
According to the State, the petitioner possessed an adequate and effective alternative remedy in the form of applications for regular bail, anticipatory bail where applicable, or other statutory remedies available under criminal law.
Court’s Judgment:
After examining the factual circumstances and legal submissions, the Madhya Pradesh High Court delivered a nuanced judgment that distinguished between unlawful detention and custody arising from lawful criminal proceedings.
The Court first considered the nature of the relief sought by the petitioner. It noted that the principal prayer seeking production and release of the petitioner was essentially a request for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court therefore proceeded to examine whether the jurisdictional requirements for issuing such a writ were satisfied.
A crucial factor influencing the Court’s decision was the undisputed position that all three preventive detention orders passed under the National Security Act had already been revoked. Consequently, there was no subsisting order of preventive detention operating against the petitioner at the time of adjudication.
The Bench observed that the petitioner’s current custody was entirely attributable to statutory arrests made in connection with multiple criminal cases. These arrests arose from FIRs disclosing cognizable offences and were therefore governed by the ordinary framework of criminal law.
The Court relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kusum Sahu. That judgment clarified that detention pursuant to lawful criminal proceedings cannot be treated as illegal detention merely because the detainee disputes the allegations or claims malicious prosecution. The High Court observed that habeas corpus is fundamentally designed to remedy unlawful detention and not to serve as an alternative mechanism for obtaining bail.
The Court held that accepting the petitioner’s arguments would effectively blur the distinction between habeas corpus jurisdiction and bail jurisdiction. Such an approach would undermine the statutory framework governing criminal procedure and permit constitutional courts to intrude into matters specifically entrusted to criminal courts.
The Bench categorically stated that the petitioner was under statutory arrest in connection with multiple FIRs disclosing cognizable offences. Since such custody was authorized by law, it could not be characterized as illegal detention.
The Court observed:
“Since petitioner is under statutory arrest on account of registration of different FIRs, disclosing cognizable offence, such relief cannot be granted by this Court in the form and nature of writ of Habeas Corpus.”
The Court further emphasized that the petitioner retained the right to seek bail before the competent courts. The availability of this remedy reinforced the conclusion that extraordinary constitutional intervention was unnecessary.
However, while refusing the habeas corpus relief, the Court did not completely reject the petitioner’s grievances. The Bench acknowledged concerns regarding transparency and procedural fairness. Consequently, it issued several directions intended to protect the petitioner’s legal rights.
The Court directed the authorities to furnish complete details of all criminal cases registered against the petitioner as well as against his family members where arrest was sought. This direction was intended to ensure that the petitioner remained fully informed about the legal proceedings affecting him.
Additionally, the Court directed that any future criminal cases registered against the petitioner or his family members must be communicated within twenty-four hours of registration. This requirement aimed to prevent situations where individuals remain unaware of newly instituted proceedings.
The Bench also relied upon the decision in Mihir Rajesh Saha v. State of Maharashtra while directing authorities to provide information regarding the grounds of registration of criminal cases and the material collected during investigation.
These directions reflected the Court’s attempt to strike a balance between individual liberty and legitimate law enforcement objectives. While refusing to interfere with lawful custody, the Court sought to ensure transparency and procedural fairness in future actions undertaken by the authorities.
Ultimately, the writ petition was partly allowed. The Court declined the prayer for habeas corpus and other reliefs relating to release from custody. At the same time, it granted limited relief by directing disclosure of information concerning pending and future criminal proceedings.
Before concluding, the Court clarified that none of its observations should prejudice the petitioner’s right to seek bail. The Bench specifically noted that its findings were confined to the issue of maintainability of habeas corpus and should not influence any future applications for bail before competent courts.
The judgment thus reinforces a well-established constitutional principle that habeas corpus is available only against unlawful detention. Where custody arises from valid statutory arrests and ongoing criminal proceedings, the proper course is to seek remedies within the criminal justice system. At the same time, the decision underscores the importance of procedural transparency and recognizes the need to protect individuals from arbitrary or opaque exercises of state power. By refusing to expand habeas corpus jurisdiction while simultaneously directing disclosure of information, the Court sought to preserve both the rule of law and the constitutional commitment to personal liberty.