Allahabad High Court Addresses Misuse of Habeas Corpus Petitions
The Allahabad High Court has voiced concerns regarding the increasing trend of accused individuals filing habeas corpus petitions to contest their detention, even after their bail applications have been denied up to the Supreme Court level. This observation was made by a bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi in the case Neeraj And Another v State of UP and Another.
The Bench noted that accused individuals are leveraging recent Supreme Court judgments that assert the initial defect in the remand of the accused is incurable and that fundamental rights can be invoked at any point during a case. The High Court expressed that this has led to a chaotic situation, enabling accused individuals to file habeas corpus petitions indiscriminately under Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution, irrespective of the investigation or trial stage.
The Bench elaborated, stating, “In the absence of any restrictions on the right of the accused to approach this court challenging his initial arrest, a Pandora’s box has been opened. Petitions are being filed after cognizance of the charge sheet, framing of charges, and under Sections 209 and 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C), as well as during the trial’s evidence recording.”
Divergent Supreme Court Judgments Create Legal Confusion
The Court highlighted the existence of two conflicting sets of Supreme Court judgments regarding arrest, remand, and illegal detention. The older judgments maintain that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be granted where a person is in jail custody based on an order that lacks jurisdiction or is entirely illegal. In contrast, the newer judgments do not impose any limitations on a person’s right to file a habeas corpus petition at any stage of the investigation or trial, asserting that an illegal initial remand order’s defect is incurable.
According to the High Court, these newer judgments have “opened floodgates” for detainees to approach courts at any investigation or trial stage, claiming their initial remand order was illegal. “In view of the second set of judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Vihan Kumar and others, we are faced with a queer situation due to irreconcilable views of the Apex Court in two sets of judgments,” the Bench observed.
More Read
Case Analysis and Court Decision
The High Court made these observations while examining a petition from a man accused of the dowry death and murder of his wife and one-year-old daughter. Despite his bail application being previously rejected by the trial court, the accused challenged his custody two years post-arrest, claiming it was illegal due to procedural lapses by the police and remand magistrate.
Upon reviewing the Supreme Court’s judgments, the High Court concluded that the legitimacy of initial and subsequent detention orders could only serve as grounds for maintaining a habeas corpus petition while the investigation was ongoing. “Once the investigation is concluded, a charge sheet is submitted, and an order of cognizance on the charge sheet is passed, the right to challenge the initial illegality in the remand order cannot be enforced,” the Bench clarified.
The Court explained that the significance of the magistrate’s initial remand order diminishes once cognizance is taken on the charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer. The Court ruled that filing a habeas corpus writ petition after the judicial order of remand and subsequent orders, including case committal and charge framing, cannot be justified.
More Read
The Bench further noted that the recent Supreme Court judgments have not considered earlier rulings comprehensively and declared that they “are not binding precedents and are hit by the principles of stare decisis.” It asserted that rejecting an accused’s bail application by the High Court or Supreme Court bars the entertainment of a habeas corpus writ petition against the accused’s custody.
In this context, the Court emphasized that the trial court had already taken cognizance of the chargesheet against the petitioner, and witness examination was underway after charges were framed. “The petitioner approached this court at an extremely belated stage, questioning the initial remand order’s legality without even recording its date in the writ petition. The petitioner’s challenge to his initial arrest is neither bona fide nor legal. The habeas corpus petition lacks merit and is thus dismissed,” the Court concluded.
Advocate Anupam Verma represented the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal and Additional Government Advocate Roopak Chaubey appeared for the State.
