The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Haji Abdul Razzak seeking relief in the nature of habeas corpus, holding that his detention could not be termed illegal as he was presently in custody in connection with criminal cases registered against him. At the same time, the Court directed the State authorities to provide information about all pending criminal cases against him and promptly inform him of any new cases registered in the future.
Background of the Case
Haji Abdul Razzak approached the High Court alleging that authorities had repeatedly used the National Security Act (NSA) and successive criminal cases to keep him incarcerated. He argued that three separate detention orders issued under the NSA had eventually been revoked after they failed to secure approval from the Advisory Board.
The petitioner contended that whenever he obtained relief in criminal proceedings, fresh cases were registered to ensure his continued custody. He also claimed that several of these cases related to periods before his arrest in August 2021 and alleged violations of his constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen noted that all preventive detention orders under the NSA had already been withdrawn and were no longer in force.
The Court observed that the petitioner's principal relief was effectively a writ of habeas corpus. However, it emphasized that a person in custody pursuant to criminal proceedings cannot ordinarily seek release through habeas corpus when statutory remedies such as bail are available.
Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kusum Sahu, the Bench observed:
“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.”
The judges held that entertaining such a plea would amount to bypassing the established legal framework governing bail and criminal proceedings.
The Court also found no material before it to conclude that the criminal cases registered against the petitioner were demonstrably false. It noted that if the petitioner wished to challenge specific FIRs or charge sheets, appropriate legal remedies remained available under law.
While declining the major reliefs sought, the Bench acknowledged the petitioner's right to know about criminal proceedings initiated against him.
The Court directed authorities to disclose details of all pending criminal cases involving the petitioner and his family members where arrest may be required. It further ordered that any newly registered crime against the petitioner should be communicated promptly, noting that technological systems such as the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS) make such disclosure feasible.
The High Court held that no case for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus was made out because the petitioner was under custody pursuant to criminal cases and had the statutory remedy of seeking bail before competent courts.
Accordingly, the petition was partly allowed only to the extent of directing disclosure of pending criminal cases and prompt intimation of newly registered crimes. All other reliefs, including release from custody, quashing of arrests and compensation claims, were rejected.
The Court also clarified that its observations would not prejudice any future bail applications filed by the petitioner.
Case Details:
Case Title: Haji Abdul Rajjak v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 27476 of 2025
Judges: Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen
Decision Date: 18 May 2026
