Madhya Pradesh High Court grants relief to man after noting he can't afford to go to Supreme Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ordered a man's release from jail after noting that he may not be able to afford approaching the Supreme Court to challenge earlier bail rejection orders [Kusum Sahu v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others].

The order was passed on a habeas corpus petition filed by the detained man's daughter. She had challenged successive High Court orders rejecting her father's bail applications in a cheating case against a company that he was allegedly a part of.

A Bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain granted the man relief after noting that he may have been made a scapegoat in this case.

Pertinently, the High Court noted that an appeal could have been filed before the Supreme Court in the matter. However, it decided to directly grant the detained man relief after noting that he may not have the courage or the finances to approach the Supreme Court.

"The petitioner could have approached the Supreme Court but a person who but a person who is having equity share of Rs.6,250/- only belongs to a lower strata of the society, has no courage/finances to approach the Supreme Court by engaging a private counsel; and is facing mental agony of rejection of multiple bail applications on the false averments/allegations, as apparent on the fact of the record by the concerned Police Station. Therefore, we find that since the father of the petitioner is in illegal detention, it is a fit case to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain this petition and pass orders," the Court said in its October 3 order.

While ordering the man's release on the execution of a ₹5,000 personal bond, the Court also expressed shock that he was the only person arrested in the cheating case, even though several others were accused.

"It is shocking that except father of the petitioner, no one has been arrested so far till date," the Court remarked.

The case concerned one Jibrakhan Lal Sahu who was booked under Sections 420 (cheating) and 409 (criminal Breach of Trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

He had remained in jail since December 12, 2023, and was accused of misappropriating ₹1,98,000 while acting as a director of Suvidha Land Developers India Pvt. Ltd.

However, his daughter, Kusum contended that her father was neither a director nor a managing director of the company and had not collected any money.

The State objected to Kusum's plea by arguing that she could not challenge bail rejection orders by filing a habeas corpus plea.

After having heard both sides, the Court noted that usually, if any bail order is rejected by a court, the aggrieved person may challenge it before the higher court. However, it observed that the present case was a unique one.

"The present case is unique one and requires intervention of this Court to save the fundamental right of the citizens, as has been the case of father of the petitioner who has been in jail since 12.12.2023, which amounts to illegal detention of the father of petitioner," the Court said.

The Court found that Sahu was arrested in the case without verifying whether he was a director of the company Suvidha Land Developers.

Notably, the Court observed that Sahu had filed a complaint in 2017 against the company and its directors for improprieties, but that no action was taken by the police. Subsequently, another complaint was filed by Sahu and his statement was recorded in court.

Meanwhile, an FIR was registered in 2021, in which one Dhirendra Gaud levelled allegations against several persons including Jibrakhanlal Sahu.

Pertinently, the Court noted that only Sahu was arrested and made the scapegoat in this case, although several other persons were named.

It proceeded to order Sahu's release and directed the police to interrogate the directors and the managing director of the company.

"In the interest of justice and to save the interest of the investors, we hereby direct the concerned Police Station to interrogate the Directors and Managing Director of the Company as mentioned above which shall be personally supervised by the concerned Superintendent of Police," the Court said, before the listing the matter again on October 14 for reporting compliance.

Advocate Amitabh Gupta appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate SS Chouhan represented the State of Madhya Pradesh.

[Read Order]