MP High Court: Habeas Corpus Not Maintainable After Bail Rejection

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a man accused in a blackbuck poaching case, holding that a person who is already in judicial custody after rejection of bail cannot seek release through such a writ petition.

The Indore Bench comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi observed that the petitioner’s detention could not be termed illegal when he was in custody pursuant to judicial orders passed by competent courts.

The petition was filed by Sabah Antulay under Article 226 of the Constitution, claiming that he had been illegally detained by the authorities. Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Ali Kaashif Khan Deshmukh argued that Antulay had been arrested solely on the basis of memorandum statements made by three co-accused persons and that no direct recovery had been made from him. The counsel further contended that the grounds of arrest were not properly communicated to the petitioner, making the arrest unlawful.

The case arose from an operation in which three accused persons, identified as Salman, Imtiaz and Johar Hussain, were apprehended on December 3, 2024. According to the prosecution, authorities recovered 64.70 kilograms of meat belonging to protected wild species, including blackbucks and chinkara, along with a country-made pistol, cartridges, mobile phones and a vehicle. A forest crime case was later registered, and Antulay was arrested on October 27, 2025 on the basis of statements allegedly made by the arrested accused.

Deshmukh relied upon several recent Supreme Court judgments, including Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, to argue that procedural safeguards relating to arrest and personal liberty had been violated. He urged the High Court to direct the State authorities to release the petitioner immediately.

Opposing the plea, Additional Advocate General Sonal Gupta submitted that the petition itself was not maintainable because the petitioner was already in judicial custody pursuant to valid remand orders. Gupta argued that habeas corpus jurisdiction could not be invoked to indirectly challenge continued custody after dismissal of a regular bail application. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Tasneem Rizwan Siddique.

The High Court accepted the State’s objection and noted that Antulay had earlier moved a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which had already been dismissed in February 2026. The Bench also referred to findings recorded in the bail order, including the allegation that the petitioner was seen in a video clip with two dead blackbucks.

Rejecting the plea, the Court observed, “It cannot be said that the petitioner is in illegal custody as all the necessary measures have been followed. Hence, the present petition can never be said to be a habeas corpus petition.”

Relying heavily on Supreme Court precedents, the Bench reiterated that habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for bail once a judicial order authorising custody is in operation. The Court quoted earlier rulings stating 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.”

Holding that no writ in the nature of habeas corpus could be issued in the present facts, the Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable while granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all permissible grounds before the trial court.

While declining relief, the Bench clarified that the petitioner remained free to pursue remedies available under ordinary criminal law, including appropriate proceedings before the trial court or higher courts.

Case Title: Sabah Antulay v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: May 8, 2026

Bench: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi