Court Directs Compliance with Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, While Emphasizing Limited Scope of Habeas Corpus
In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Jabalpur Bench addressed three writ petitions concerning allegations of illegal detention by the Madhya Pradesh Police. The petitions, filed by Khizar Khan, Uday Ghenghat, and Anam Ahamad, accused the police of unlawfully detaining three individuals, Bilal Khan, Nikhil Prajapati alias Atul Prajapati, and Inam Ahmed, and subsequently transferring them to the Rajasthan Police without following the lawful procedure.
The court, presided over by Mr. Vivek Rusia, A.C.J., and Mr. Pradeep Mittal, J., examined the petitions under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, which sought a writ of Habeas Corpus for the production and release of the detained individuals. The petitioners contended that the detentions were made without disclosing grounds or registering any offense, constituting a violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
In an interim order, the court had directed the production of the detained individuals and called for reports from the police commissioners of both states. The Rajasthan Police maintained that the individuals were formally arrested in Jaipur on April 22, 2026, and not in Madhya Pradesh. The court, however, found prima facie evidence suggesting illegal detention by the Bhopal Police. Consequently, the statements recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate were ordered to be treated as a complaint under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prompting further legal action.
The High Court emphasized that the writ of Habeas Corpus is limited to testing the legality of detention and securing release, not addressing past illegality or compensation, which should be pursued in separate proceedings. Since the detained individuals were subsequently released on bail, the court deemed the writ petitions to have achieved their purpose.
While disposing of the petitions, the court ordered that any ongoing inquiries, including a departmental inquiry against a police officer in Jaipur, proceed uninfluenced by the writ petition's observations. The court also clarified that the petitioners are free to pursue compensation or other legal remedies related to the alleged illegal detention.
This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures during detentions and reinforces the limited scope of Habeas Corpus writs in addressing unlawful detentions.
Bottom line:-
Writ of Habeas Corpus - Allegation of illegal detention - Scope of writ confined to testing legality of detention and securing release - Not a remedy for compensation or disciplinary consequences, which must be sought in separate proceedings before appropriate forums.
Statutory provision(s): Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
