The Supreme Court's judgment clarifies that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to release an accused person held in custody after their bail has been denied, emphasizing the distinction between habeas corpus petitions and bail applications.the democracy is meaningless without the read of corpus since our system is based on anglo american system so we have i mean in india read of corpus has immense significance and this read came to india from britain in the late 18th century yesterday the supreme court of india delivered a very good judgment on the read of corpus so the supreme court ruled that the read of corpus cannot be issued to release accused taken into custody after dismissal of bail please so that judgment is a very good judgment i will briefly explain this judgment so the supreme court has set aside the judgment pronounced by madhya pradesh high court which had directed the release of an accused through read of corpus petition after his four successive bail applications were rejected that means the accused person is in judicial custody and the court rejected his four bail application but today bail is not the subject matter of our discussion so provisions of bails are contained in crpc and bnss of course now we have bnss the supreme court called the high court's approach totally unknown to law and shocking to the conscience of this court the bench of supreme court was consisted of justices rajesh bindal and manmohan and both the judges allowed states appeal that means the madhya pradesh high court's judgment was challenged before the supreme court and the state of madhya pradesh challenge the madhya pradesh high court's order so the the case concerns one accused i will not mention his name he was an accused in a sitting and criminal breach of trust case which was registered in 2021 in bhopal capital of madhya pradesh following his arrest in december 20 23 and a charge sheet was filed on february 2024 he unsuccessfully approached the high court four times for regular bail so his bail applications were rejected between january and may 2024 after these rejections his daughter filed a habious corpus petition claiming unlawful detention on october 3 2024 the high court accepted the plea and ordered his release on a personal bond of rupees 5000 by holding that his continued custody amounted to illegal detention particularly considering the family's financial inability to approach the supreme court but the state challenged this order on july 18 2025 the supreme court stayed the high court's direction observing that it was a primafacy shocking despite the staying order he did not surrender until october 25 so supreme court set aside the high court's ruling the supreme court held that the custody pursuant to a criminal case especially after multiple bail applications were rejected it cannot be termed unlawful the bench noted that the high court examined the case on merits as if hearing an appeal against rejection of bail which is impermissible in a habious corpus proceeding the manner in which the case has been dealt which really shocks the conscience of this court the bench said the bench also added that permitting such an approach would scuttle the due process of law and must be prevented less the high court start following the impuns order as a president to scuttle the due process of law or the procedure established by law to nip the evil in the bud we hold that custody of an accused in a criminal case registers against him cannot be held to be unlawful especially when his bail applications have been dismissed the court held since the accused person has already surrendered the court clarified that any future bail plea i mean bail petition filed by him must be considered independently on merits by the approaching court so i think this judgment is a very good judgment and i also believe that the madhya pradesh high court actually wrongly interpreted and the provisions on read of corpus so bail petition should be distinguished from read of corpus petition so read of corpus means when you are challenging your detention order again i am repeating the detention order is challenging on several grounds maybe one most important ground is illegible consideration or maybe the arbitrary exercise of power or maybe that detention order is not in accordance with the law but here in in this case the accused person was arrested under the law he was arrested under crpc and normal procedure was followed he was produced before a just within 24 hours of his arrest so maybe police sought remand and i think that a court gave that remand order so after above that remand he was sent back to the jail and while he has been in jail so it is legal i mean law authorized his lawyer to approach courts to file bail petitions if one bail petition is rejected still the accused person is free to approach or free to file another bail petitions so provis there is nothing illegal so court was justified in rejecting those bail petitions if the bail petition is rejected so he will again file a bail petition and provisions of law are clear in this respect and again i am repeating the provisions of law are clear normally it is 90 days within which a charge sheet should be filed and here the charge sheet was filed so his case is now pending before court so he has to spend his days in jail and due process was followed but here you see the the habeas corpus petition is totally different so here his lawyer filed the habeas corpus petition and the madhya pradesh high court should have dismissed his petition the distinction between habeas corpus petition and bail applications are totally different even if he is denied bail he could have challenged that bail order before high court or even supreme court suppose the trial court rejected his bail petition definitely he challenged that order before learned high court even if the high court rejected his bail application then he should have approached the supreme court he has all the legal rights fundamental rights to approach the supreme court but the high court wrongly interpreted that that legal provision i mean provision of the law that he lacks his family members lacks the financial capabilities or financial asset to reach the supreme court then we have another provisions he could have approached the state legal service authority or we have that national legal service authority there are enough legal provisions to help him so instead of doing it he filed a habeas corpus petition again i am repeating the madhya pradesh high court dismissed his bail applications he should have challenged that high court order before learned supreme court instead of doing it his lawyer filed a habeas corpus petition so i think the supreme court was right in this respect

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Judicial Conundrum in India

Recently one fire incident in the official resident of Justice Yashwanta Varma led to recovery of crores of burnt notes not only  shocking but also shook people's confidence in higher Judiciary as an infallible institution .One store room of justice Yashwanta Sinha was caught fire while he was not in his resident,and fire brigade came to extinguish fire and crores of burnt notes were recovered.Justice Varma was not in Delhi for any kind of comments at that time.Once he was a contacted ,he immediately denied his involvement in that incident rather he alleged that it was a conspiracy to tarnish his image.The Chief Justice Of India constituted a high powered committe ,consisting of two Chief Justices of High Courts and one sitting judge of a High Court.to enquire the alleged recovery of money.The Supreme Court Collegium recommended his immediate  transfer to Allahabad High Court ,which triggered a hugh protest initiated by Allahabad Bar Association against that transfer,that Alla...
Read more

Hungarian revolution of 1956Is Revolution was also known as the Hungarian uprising, an attempted Rebellion against the communist government , that came into existence after the World War II. Hungry was an axis ally of Nazi Germany. The USSR occupied Hungary and April 28 government was established. Hungary became a satellite state of USSR. Soviet government was actually a totalitarian government. Hungarian people are descendants of Slavic and Huns. In disrespect remember the cruel rule Attila the Hun. The Hungerian revolution of lasted for l 15 days, until it was crushed by Soviet tanks. Several thousands hungarians lost their lives m several hundred Russians also lost their lives.On 23rd of October 1956, some University students appealed to the civilian population to protest against Russian authoritarian rule the domination of USSR in its geopolitical interest. At that time, Hungary was ruled by a Stalinist government. The students demanded reform on 16 points, but all the students were detained by security guards. The Hungarian people rose against the Communist Party and the secret police of Hungary. And the local communists and secret policemen were executed. A new government was formed under Imrey Negi, who was the liberal man. Under his leadership hungry had withdrawn from Warshaw pact. The new government agreed to hold new election, hungry was heading towards democracy.Initially the USSR agreed negotiate with the new government and accordingly delete Army withdrew. Russians apprehended Hungary embrace the Western block live by USA would be a big threat two dog communist block. So the Russians betrayed the hungarians and hungry was invaded by several Russian divisions. The Hungarian Army was no match before the might of Russian army and after Fierce resistance the hungarians were defeated. The free hungarians were expecting Western help but that did not come. Finally the new government was rendered useless the leaders were arrested and executive latter. The communist government again was installed in Hungary and hungry again became is satellite state of USSR . The Communist rule finally collapse in 1989 after destruction of Berlin Wall. Now Hungary is a Democratic state.

Read more

[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: A K Gopalan v The State(1950,S.C.R.88) was a momentous case in the Constitutional history of India.Any discussion/ lecture on the Constitutional law is incomplete without first examining this case, whether critically or analytically.This case was decided at a time When the Country got independence from British rule and The Constitution of India had come into force,and more than it , for the first timea chapter on Fundamental Rights had been incorporated in the Constitution .The Supreme Court got a golden opportunity to interpret the Article 19,21 and 22 expansively against Executive or legislative power of the state.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: Brief Fact of the case-A K Gopalan,a radical leftist of the Madras Province was detained under the Preventive Detention Act ,1950,and in fact he was detained for several times under the Act.Under Entry 9 of Union list ,the Parliament has the power to enact law on Preventive Detention.Though Preventive Detention is an anathema in modern time,it was justified as a necessary evil to protect the unity and integrity of the state.Even in Britain and America it was used only during the war time ,that too against suspected enemy aliens[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: A K Gopalan filed a habeas Corpus writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and challenged the detention ordering a wide ground that the Detention Act ,under which he was detained was void for violating Articles 19 and 21 and also on a narrow ground that it did comply with the requirements of Article 22.Article 22 prescribes certain procedural safeguards against it.Learned Counsel M K Nambiyar on behalf of Gopalan contended that the Detention Act 1959 violated Article 21 and was void on following grounds1.Personal liberty included the freedoms conferred by Article 19(1)(a) to (e) and (g) and the impunged act ( detention act) did not satisfy the test of Article 19(2) to (6).2.The Preventive Detention Act directly violated Gopalans right to move freely , because the freedom of movement is of essence of personal liberty.3.Article 19 (1) and 21 should be read together because Article 19 dealt with substantive rights and Article 21 dealt with procedural rights.4.The reference in Article 21 to Procedure established by law meant due process of law and the Act did not satisfy the requirements of due process of law.5.The word law in Article 21 meant not the state made law but jus naturale ,of the principles of natural justice.The law did not comply with the requirements of Natural justice[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: It will be seen that from 1 to 5 that the proposition that Article 21 applied to the Preventive Detention ,was the foundation of all the reasons,and learned Attorney General M C Seetlevad countered by contending that Article 22 was a complete code and Article 21 didnot apply to Preventive Detention law.All the questions raised some points of immense Constitutional importance and a Six Judge Bench comprising CJI H L J Kania ,Justices P .Shastri ,M C Mahajan,B K Mukherjee ,SS Das and Fazl Ali S was constituted to hear the matters .All the six judges delivered separate judgments after a lengthy hearings .Five learned judges( Fazl Ali dissenting) held that Article 19 did not apply to Preventive Detention thought the freedoms as a result of detention freedoms may be curtailed.Fazl Ali dissented and held that Preventive Detention was a direct infringement of Article 19 and was subject to Judicial review even it was narrowly construed The majority judges did not hold that Article 22 was a complete code ,so they disagreed with learned Attorney General contention and only M C Mahajan alone held Article 22 was a complete code on Preventive Detention.Fazl Ali dissented by holding that " No calamitous or untoward result would follow even if the Provisions of Penal code became justiciable".CJI Kania, and Justices Shastri, Mukherjee and SS Das held the concept of right to move freely throughout the territory of India was entirely different from the Concept of the right to personal liberty.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: Except Justice M C Mahajan who held that Article 22 was a complete code, majority held that Articles 19 (1) and Article 21 did not operate in the same field, because Article 18 conferred rights only one citizens, article 21 conferred rights on all persons. Again if article 21 conferred only procedural rights then the most precious right the Right to life was nowhere found in our Constitution. Therefore the majority held that Article 21 also conferred substanrive rights also. It may be observed that far from holding that fundamental rights were mutually exclusive, Mukherjee held that a substantive law authorizing the deprivation of life must conform to the requirements of Article 20.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: CJI Kania, Justices Mukherjee and SR Das held that law in Article 21 had been used in the sense of State made law and not in the embodying the Principle of Natural Justice, and Procedure established by law meant a law made by Union Parliament or by State legislatures. Justice Shastri held that the law meant Positive or state made law and did not mean jus naturale, but the procedure meant well established criminal procedure. Justice Fazl Ali dissented by holding that whatever Procedure established by law may mean, and must include 1 . Notice 2.opportunity to be heard 3.impartial tribunal 4.orderly procedure. So according to fazl Ali a positive law must include jus naturale.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: The majority judges held that the Procedure established by law didnot mean due process of law as understood in United States of America. The report of Drafting Committe showed that the words Procedure established by law were substituted for the words without due process of law. Our founding fathers were well aware of its abuse by American judges during the New Deal period.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: So in this case, different views were expressed by different judges, so no common points emerged on the correlation of articles 19 to 20,21 and 22 or the meaning of the expression personal liberty.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: But Justice Fazl Ali dissenting points are regarded as one of the greatest dissents of all time. Justice R Nariman paid a rich tribute to Fazl Ali foresight by saying "simply takes our breath away".

Read more