The Supreme Court of India has set aside an order by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh that directed the release of an accused through a habeas corpus petition, despite the same High Court having dismissed four of his regular bail applications.
A bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Kusum Sahu, held that the High Court’s order was “totally without jurisdiction” and the process followed was “totally unknown to law.” The Court ruled that the custody of an accused in a registered criminal case cannot be deemed unlawful merely because his bail applications have been dismissed.
Background of the Case
The matter pertains to Jibrakhan Lal Sahu, an accused in FIR/Crime No. 157 of 2021 registered at Police Station Bagsewaniya, District Bhopal, for offences under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Mr. Sahu was arrested on December 12, 2023, and a chargesheet was filed on February 9, 2024.
Following his arrest, Mr. Sahu filed four separate bail applications before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh within a four-month period, all of which were dismissed:
- MCRC No. 58100 of 2023 (Dismissed as withdrawn on January 23, 2024)
- MCRC No. 9299 of 2024 (Dismissed on March 5, 2024)
- MCRC No. 10613 of 2024 (Dismissed on March 14, 2024)
- MCRC No. 19661 of 2024 (Dismissed on May 29, 2024)
Subsequently, the judgment noted, “a novel method was adopted by his daughter-Kusum Sahu,” the respondent. She filed Writ Petition No. 24337 of 2024 before the High Court, invoking its habeas corpus jurisdiction. The petition sought the release of her father, claiming he was in “unlawful detention.”
On October 3, 2024, the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the release of Jibrakhan Lal Sahu on his furnishing a personal bond of ₹5,000/- with one surety.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The State of Madhya Pradesh, represented by its counsel, challenged the High Court’s order, arguing it was a “strange case.” The State submitted that the custody of an accused in a criminal case “cannot be said to be unlawful, especially when four bail applications filed by him had already been rejected by the High Court.” The appellants contended the impugned order was “totally without jurisdiction.”
Counsel for the respondent, Kusum Sahu, “fairly submitted that the process adopted was wrong.” However, it was prayed that as two other co-accused in the same FIR had been granted regular bail, Mr. Sahu, being “similarly situated,” might also be granted the concession of bail.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court, in its order dated November 3, 2025, first noted that the High Court was aware of the fact that four prior bail applications had been rejected.
The bench observed that the High Court had examined the merits of the criminal case, noting the respondent’s argument that the orders rejecting bail were “no less than illegal orders of continuing detention” and that the parties “had no finances to approach the Supreme court.”
The Supreme Court strongly disapproved of this reasoning and procedure. The judgment stated, “the manner in which the case has been dealt with really shocks the conscience of this Court.”
This echoed the Court’s initial reaction on July 18, 2025, when it first issued notice in the matter, stating, “A perusal of the impugned order, prima facie, shocks our conscience seeing the manner in which jurisdiction has been exercised by the High Court.”
In its final analysis, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had held the accused’s custody to be unlawful and directed his release “while examining the case on merits as if the Court was hearing appeal against the order rejecting the bail application.”
The bench declared this “process followed is totally unknown to law.”
To prevent the High Court’s order from being used as a precedent “to scuttle the due process of law,” the Supreme Court stated it had “to nip the evil in the bud.”
The Court laid down a clear legal position: “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.”
For these reasons, the Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal and set aside the High Court’s impugned order. The Court noted that the accused, Jibrakhan Lal Sahu, had surrendered on October 25, 2025 (after an earlier Supreme Court order) and was already in custody.
The bench clarified that this judgment does not preclude future relief, stating, “whenever bail application is filed by the accused/Jibrakhan Lal Sahu, the same may be considered on its own merits by the court concerned.”
