The Supreme Court is set to determine whether a habeas corpus petition remains maintainable when a person is kept in custody through a series of arrests after his bail has been denied. The issue arose from a petition filed by Haji Abdul Razzak, who claims to have been in custody since August 2021 without being furnished the written grounds of his arrest as required by law.
During the hearing on July 1, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Razzak, relied on the decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra to contend that the failure to supply written grounds of arrest vitiates the legality of the detention. He argued that the High Court’s dismissal of the habeas corpus petition solely on the basis that Razzak’s bail plea had been rejected was erroneous, as the rejection of bail does not extinguish the constitutional remedy available under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the State of Madhya Pradesh, opposed the maintainability of the petition. He submitted that all the contentions raised by the petitioner had already been considered by the High Court, which had held the petitioner’s custody to be ‘correct’ because his bail application had been rejected. Raju urged the Court to uphold the High Court’s view that habeas corpus proceedings cannot be entertained when bail has been denied.
Justice MM Sundresh, however, observed that the question of bail rejection cannot be the sole determinant in assessing the maintainability of a habeas corpus petition. He noted that, irrespective of the bail outcome, larger questions of law concerning the supply of arrest grounds, the repetitive use of preventive detention laws and the possibility of abuse of executive power required consideration. Consequently, the Bench issued notice on the petition and directed the State to file a counter‑affidavit.
The petitioner’s narrative, as presented to the Court, outlines a pattern of successive arrests and detentions. Razzak states that he was first arrested in August 2021 for an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, detention orders were passed against him under the National Security Act in August 2021, April 2022 and January 2023. He alleges that each of those orders was later revoked because they were not approved by the State Advisory Board constituted under the NSA. Razzak contends that, despite the revocation of the detention orders, fresh criminal proceedings or coercive actions are initiated whenever his release appears imminent, thereby resulting in a continuous deprivation of liberty.
To substantiate his claim of abuse of power, Razzak points to ancillary measures taken against him and his family, including the freezing of bank accounts, initiation of demolition proceedings and suspension of mining operations. He describes these actions as a sustained and coordinated exercise of executive power aimed at ensuring his continued incarceration. The petitioner maintains that his habeas corpus petition is not intended as a substitute for ordinary bail proceedings but rather as a constitutional challenge to the legality of a continuing pattern of detention arising from repetitive arrests, successive criminal prosecutions and repeated invocation of preventive detention law.
The High Court had dismissed the petition relying on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kusum Sahu, holding that habeas corpus could not be maintained once bail had been rejected. Razzak distinguishes his case from Kusum Sahu by asserting that his constitutional challenge was filed prior to any successive bail applications, whereas in Kusum Sahu the writ was filed after the rejection of successive bail applications. He further argues that the decisions in Prabir Purkayastha v. State and Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, which the High Court deemed inapplicable because they arose from economic offences, are relevant because the guarantee under Article 22(1) of the Constitution is not offence‑specific. Since the High Court had found that the grounds of arrest were not supplied in writing, Razzak contends that those precedents ought to apply.
The Bench’s decision to issue notice indicates that the Supreme Court will examine the interplay between bail rejection, the non‑supply of written arrest grounds and the permissibility of habeas corpus relief in the context of successive detentions. The outcome may clarify the scope of Article 32 remedies when a person is subjected to a cycle of arrest and detention despite the denial of bail.