Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court direction that had ordered the release of an accused through a habeas corpus petition after his successive bail applications were rejected. The Court stated that the High Court’s course of action was “totally unknown to law” and described the manner in which jurisdiction was exercised as “shocking to the conscience of this Court.” The matter concerned allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust, with the accused already in lawful custody following the filing of a chargesheet. Allowing the State’s appeal, the Bench held that custody in such circumstances could not be treated as unlawful and left future bail consideration to the competent court.

The matter arose from an FIR registered on 7 March 2021 at Police Station Bagsewaniya, District Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, alleging offences under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code against an accused. He was arrested on 12 December 2023, and a chargesheet was filed on 9 February 2024.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes Bail Orders In NDPS Case; Directs Fresh High Court Hearing On Statutory Satisfaction Under Section 37 Threshold In Cocaine–Methamphetamine Import Case

Following his arrest, the accused filed four bail applications before the High Court. The first was dismissed as withdrawn on 23 January 2024. The second was rejected on 5 March 2024, the third on 14 March 2024, and the fourth on 29 May 2024.

Subsequently, his daughter filed a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that the custody of the accused was unlawful. The High Court allowed the petition on 3 October 2024 and directed his release on a personal bond with surety.

The State contended before the Supreme Court that custody pursuant to criminal proceedings could not be termed unlawful and that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant release through habeas corpus, particularly after bail had been repeatedly denied. The respondent’s counsel submitted that the method adopted was incorrect but maintained that the relief had been justified, further noting that other accused in the same FIR had been granted regular bail. The accused surrendered on 25 October 2025 following a Supreme Court direction

The Court recorded that the accused had been arrested, a chargesheet filed, and “within a period of four months, the accused filed four bail applications before the High Court and all these were dismissed.” It noted that the habeas corpus petition was filed by the accused’s daughter after these rejections.

While issuing notice earlier, the Bench had stated that “a perusal of the impugned order, prima facie, shocks our conscience seeing the manner in which jurisdiction has been exercised by the High Court.” It further recorded that the petition was filed “even having grievance against rejection of the bail orders.”

The Court observed: “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 added that the High Court had proceeded “as if the Court was hearing appeal against the order rejecting the bail application.”

The Bench stated that the process followed was “totally unknown to law.” It also recorded: “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.”

Also Read: LLP Disputes To Be Referred To Arbitration Under Entry 14 Of First Schedule Even Absent Arbitration Clause In Agreement: Karnataka High Court

The Court additionally noted that the accused was indeed facing a criminal case in which the chargesheet had been filed, and that custody in such circumstances could not be termed unlawful.

The Court directed: “For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. The accused/Jibrakhan Lal Sahu is already in custody. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. We make it clear that whenever bail application is filed by the accused/Jibrakhan Lal Sahu, the same may be considered on its own merits by the court concerned.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. V.V.V. Pattabhiram, D.A.G.; Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR; Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, AOR; Mr. Devvrat Singh, Adv.

Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Kusum Sahu
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.4710 of 2025, Arising out of SLP(Criminal)No.10491 of 2025
Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Manmohan