Habeas Corpus Not Maintainable When Person Is In Statutory Custody Under Multiple FIRs Disclosing Cognizable Offences: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court had said where a person is under statutory arrest pursuant to multiple FIRs disclosing cognizable offences the remedy of habeas corpus cannot be granted specially wherein previous detention orders had been revoked and the person is not under illegal detention. The division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen observed:"Second relief in regard to production of the petitioner and is in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus as admitted by Shri Mohammad Ali, learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner and therefore, we are of the opinion that 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, especially in view of judgment of Supreme Court in Kusum Sahu (supra)".The court said that the petitioner can invoke remedy of seeking bail from the competent court.The petitioner had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging that the State had repeatedly invoked preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980 and thereafter continued registering criminal cases against him while he remained incarcerated to keep him imprisoned indefinitely. The petitioner contended that he was first arrested in August 2021 in connection with the offence of attempt to murder (Section 307) IPC. Subsequently, detention orders under the NSA were imposed on three occasions- August 2021, April 2022 and January 2-023. According to him, each detention order was later revoked as they were not approved by the State Advisory Board constituted under the NSA. The petitioner argued that despite securing bail in various cases, the authorities repeatedly initiated fresh proceedings to prevent his release. He further alleged that several FIRs were registered after his incarceration but related to the period before his arrest, indicating a deliberate attempt to keep him in continuous custody. The senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the State had acted in violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution. It was contended that the petitioner had not been properly informed of the grounds of arrest and that successive criminal proceedings amounted to abuse of power. The petitioner also argued that the repeated registration of criminal cases while he remained in custody was similar to the circumstances considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Binay Kumar v State of Jharkhand, where concerns were expressed regarding efforts to keep an accused continuously incarcerated. The Advocate General for the State opposed the petition on the ground that the relief sought was essentially a writ of habeas corpus, which could not be invoked where a detention order arose from judicial orders passed in criminal cases. The State emphasized the Supreme Court decision in the case of State of MP v Kusum Sahu, wherein it was held that custody pursuant to criminal proceedings could not be treated as unlawful merely because bail was denied. The bench noted that all three NSA detention orders challenged by the petition were already revoked by the Board, and no order of preventive detention was in force. The bench noted that the petitioner's current incarceration stemmed from statutory criminal cases and not from any subsisting preventive detention order. The court held, "Accordingly, we hold that, since the relief of issuance a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued under the facts and circumstances of the present case, especially when we hold that, there is no illegal detention and petitioner has a statutory remedy of obtaining bail from the competent Court. Other relief being not admissible they are declined and to that extent, this writ petition is dismissed".Relying on the case of Kusum Sahu, the bench reiterated that custody in a criminal case could not be treated as illegal detention merely because the petitioner alleged malice or because multiple FIRs had been registered against him. The bench rejecting the habeas corpus plea observed that entertaining such a petition would amount to encroaching on the jurisdiction specifically vested in courts dealing with bail matters. Therefore, the bench directed the authorities to furnish details of all criminal cases registered against the petitioner and his family members where an arrest was sought. The bench also directed that any newly registered criminal cases against them be communicated within 24 hours of registration. Further, the court ordered that the grounds of registration of cases and material collected during the investigation be supplied in in the light of decision in Mihir Rajesh Saha Vs. State of Maharashtra."Therefore, this writ petition to the extent of furnishing information in regard to the disclosure of all pending criminal cases and prompt intimation of newly registered crimes is allowed in part and for other...

Habeas Corpus Not Maintainable When Person Is In Statutory Custody Under Multiple FIRs Disclosing Cognizable Offences: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

Habeas Corpus Not Maintainable When Person Is In Statutory Custody Under Multiple FIRs Disclosing Cognizable Offences: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers