Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Haji Abdul Rajjak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 WP-27476-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP No. 27476 of 2025
(SHRI HAJI ABDUL RAJJAK Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 18-03-2026
Shri Mohammad Ali - Learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
S.A. Farooqui and Shri A.S. Hussain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Harpreet Singh Ruprah and Shri Brahmdatt Singh - Addl.
Advocate Generals for the respondents No. 1 to 7/State.
Shri Sanjay K. Agarwal - Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Mihir Agarwal - Advocate for the respondent No.8 Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that, petitioner is aggrieved of successive actions of the respondents/State in keeping him under the illegal detention. It is alleged that, petitioner was apprehended in the intervening night of 26.08.2021 and 27.08.2021 in regard to a case registered at Police Station Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur under Section 307 IPC.
Thereafter, immediately the District Administration invoked NSA on 27.08.2021 which was revoked on 06.10.2021. Second NSA was invoked on 24.06.2022 which was revoked on 12.08.2022. Third NSA was imposed on 17.01.2023 which was revoked on 03.03.2023.
It is submitted that, whenever, petitioner exercised his legal right and obtained bails from the competent Courts, then in order to not to allow him to come out of prison, NSA has been used as a tool to keep Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 01-04-2026 14:25:12 2 WP-27476-2025 him in the prison.
It is further submitted that, petitioner was never communicated grounds for arrest, reasons for arrest and successive registration of Criminal Cases despite the fact that petitioner was in prison. Those successive arrest have been so designed to frame the petitioner so that he remains in custody in perpetuity inasmuch as all the cases which have been registered subsequently are pertaining to the period prior to his arrest on 26/27.08.2021.
It is submitted that in the intervening night of 26 & 27.08.2021, petitioner was arrested at about midnight which amounts to volitation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the petitioner has a right to sleep and this fact of right to life is covered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khadak Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1963 SC 1295. It is pointed out that relevant paragraphs are 17, 18 &
19. Thus, it is submitted that, right to sleep and right to privacy which are ingrained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India have been violated as far as petitioner is concerned.
Petitioner's contention is that, his house so also that of his relative was subjected to demolish, violating his Fundamental Rights.
Mining leases, allotted in favour of the petitioner were cancelled and thereafter, penal action was followed. The arms licenses in the name of the wife of petitioner were cancelled and also bank accounts not only of the petitioner but is kith and keens were freeze. They were released as Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 01-04-2026 14:25:12 3 WP-27476-2025 per the directives of the Court. Thus, it is pointed out that continuation of illegal lodging of the petitioner in the prison amounts to illegal detention and is violative of Article 19 (1) (d) so also Article 22 of the Constitution of India. He also alleges violation of Article 21, Article 14 & Article 322 besides Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India.
It is submitted that law is crystal clear and mere accepting remand or filing of charge-sheet will not cured the default of non- communication of reasons for arrest as has been held in the case of Madhu Limaye (AIR 1969 SC 1014) Paragraph 14 and Vihan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2025 SC 1388: (2025) SCC Online 269 , wherein reliance is placed on paragraph 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 that, if grounds for detention are not explained and informed to the petitioner in the same language in which he understands then that will vitiate the arrest.
It is also submitted that, oral communication of grounds has been deprecated by Hon'ble Supreme Court and amounts to no communication.
Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 55 of 2026, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court vide para-12 has submitted that "successive registration of FIRs was to ensure to keep petitioner No.1 within the custody and we are also fortified by the fact that on grant of bail by this Court on 17.12.2025, petitioner No.1 has been remanded to custodial interrogation by order Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 01-04-2026 14:25:12 4 WP-27476-2025 dated 19.12.2025 passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate in FIR No.458/2025 and again further remand was granted for seven days as against the prayer of fourteen days by the order dated 20.12.2025 in FIR No.20/2025 by the jurisdictional Magistrate. These continued acts and conduct of the prosecution would clearly establish that the respondents have consciously ensure that petitioner No.1 is kept in custody."
Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Manoj Vs. State of M.P. (1999)3 SCC 715 , dealing from para-12 it is pointed out that there is continuous violation of Fundamental rights of the petitioner.
Reliance is also placed on a Division Bench decision of this High Court in the case of Chanda Ajmera Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (W.P. No. 7399 of 2020) dated 18.05.2020 and others as uploaded in the reference with license of law finder. Reading from this judgment and specifically paragraph 17, 18 & 19 it is submitted that, even a person is required to be produced before the Magistrate even when arrest is made while a person is in custody. Thus, it is pointed that Chandamal Ajmera (supra) clearly makes a mention of the fact that Article 22 is required to be followed in letter and spirit.
Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Wazid and others Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 450/2024 decided on 22.08.2025, where Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the authorities to release the petitioner on bail.
Thus, it is pointed out that, present being a case where grounds of Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 01-04-2026 14:25:12 5 WP-27476-2025 detention have not been communicated as per the requirement of law, grounds of arrest have not been given in writing in the language understood by the petitioner and also taking this fact into consideration that on several occasions petitioner was not produced before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 24 hours as prescribed under the law, it is submitted that, present is a case of State Sponsored Anarchy, where state is proposing to keep the petitioner in custody in perpetuity for whole of his life and wish to harass him and his family by adopting various draconian measures.
Shri Sanjay K. Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mihir Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent No.8 submits that, since the petitioner has not made any allegation against him and has not raise any arguments against him, therefore, there is no need for him to give any rebuttal. He craves leave of this Court to argue in Election Petition before some where.
Considering the submission made, and in view of the fact that no allegations have been levelled against respondent No. 8, permission is granted. Shri Sanjay K. Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No. 8, is permitted to attend to his other professional engagements.
When we asked, Shri Harpreet Ruprah, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by another Addl. Advocate General Shri Brahmdatt Singh that when three cases were registered as informed by him on Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 01-04-2026 14:25:12 6 WP-27476-2025 31.12.2021 registering case Crime No. 892 of 2021 at Police Station Lordganj, Jabalpur under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Panel Code and then second case was registered on 04.04.2022 at Police Station Barela registering case Crime No. 211 of 2022 under Section 447 IPC and third case was registered on 12.01.2022 at Police Station Hanumantal, registering case Crime No. 27 of 2022 under Sections 308, 365, 386, 294, 452, 342, 506, 120-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act, then on which of the dates petitioner who was in custody was formally arrested and produced before the Magistrate.
Firstly, it is informed that Officer from Police Station Barela will answer the queries, but he is not in the Court. Now Shri Rajpal Singh Baghel, Inspector and SHO, Police Station Omti is produced to answer our queries. When we asked the same questions as were put to the learned Additional Advocate Generals, then Shri Rajpal Singh Baghel submits that, he has no idea about the date of arrest and date of production of the accused before the Magistrate. He further submits that, he joined as SHO, Police Station Omti in June, 2024 and therefore, he has no information about the incidents which took place prior to that. Thus, it is evident that Shri Baghel has been unnecessarily troubled to come to Court as he has no role to play. Shri Baghel is directed to leave the Court to perform his normal duties and serve the citizen rather than being a liability to the system as he admittedly is of no use to the Court Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 01-04-2026 14:25:12 7 WP-27476-2025 proceedings, today.
Shri H.S. Ruprah, learned Addl. Advocate General admits that FIR at Vijay Nagar Police Station was registered on 27.08.2021 at 03:45 hrs. and as per Roznamcha, police had reached house of the petitioner between 04-04:30 a.m., which is disputed by Shri Mohd. Ali, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and submits that, in fact prior to registration of FIR, police was already at his door.
It is also not disputed by Shri H.S. Ruprah, learned Addl. Advocate General that on 27.08.2021 representation was received from the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur and on the same date i.e. 27.08.2021 itself, learned District Magistrate, Jabalpur had passed orders under the provisions of National Securities Act, 1980. He further admits that Advisory Board had not approved the invocation of NSA, therefore, it was removed on 03.10.2021.
When we wanted to know that what was the change circumstances for invoking NSA again in the month of June, 2022 then when petitioner was admittedly still in custody, despite revocation of prevented detention, it is submitted that three cases were registered from 31.12.2021 to 04.04.2022 at three different Police Stations.
It is admitted that, for case Crime No. 892 of 2021 registered at Police Station Lordganj, cause of action is shown to have accrued between 10.01.2019 to 09.01.2021, whereas for the FIR registered at Police Station Barela registering case Crime No. 211 of 2022 cause Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 01-04-2026 14:25:12 8 WP-27476-2025 action admittedly accrued on 03.04.2022. For case Crime No. 27 of 2022 registered at Police Station Hanumantal, date of cause of action is 19.09.2020 for which FIR was lodged on 12.01.2022.
When we asked from Shri H.S. Ruprah and Shri B.D. Singh, learned Addl. Advocate Generals, to inform us that on which of the dates in each of the aforesaid three cases, petitioner was arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, then there is deafening silence. More than 10 minutes time have lapsed when we have put this questions, but no answer is forthcoming. Even, SHO, Police Station Barela on whose shoulder lot of responsibility is shifted, is not present. Inasmuch as, it is informed informed by learned Addl. Advocate General that he is present in the Court premises, but since he is not present in the Court room where the case is going on, his presence in the Court premises is of no use.
In para 4 onwards, of the Affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police Jabalpur Shri Sampat Upadhyay which are available on record vide I.A. No. 15212 of 2025, it is mentioned as as under:
"4. That, thereafter, when the matter came up for hearing on 23.09.2025, after considering the submissions of the petitioner that despite issuance of the production warrant by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur, as is apparent from Annexure P/25, the petitioner has not been produced before the Magistrate, inter alia, a direction was Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 01-04-2026 14:25:12 9 WP-27476-2025 given to file affidavit of the answering respondent No. 3 / Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur as to under which provision of law the petitioner was not produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Hence, this affidavit is being filed.
5. That, from a bare perusal of Annexure P/25 filed with the Writ Petition it is clearly evident that the same is the order-sheet of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur in Crime No. 427/2023 registered at Police Station Omti, District Jabalpur. Further perusal thereof shows that an application, alongwith the police case diary, was moved by the police in the said crime for issuance of production warrant in respect of the petitioner so as to initiate the proceedings of his arrest and remand as he was presently confined in Central Jail, Jabalpur in respect of another Crime No. 300/2023 registered at Police Station Omti, District Jabalpur. A copy of the said application dated 15.04.2024 is filed herewith as ANNEXURE R/21.
6. That, pursuant thereto, after perusing the police case diary, vide order dated 16.04.2024 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed for producing of the petitioner from the Central Jail through the production warrant and fixed the next date as 20.04.2024 for his presence.Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 01-04-2026 14:25:12
10 WP-27476-2025
7. That, however, from a further perusal of the said order-sheet (Annexure P/25) it evinces that as the petitioner was not produced in the Court on the said next date 20.04.2024 as well as the various subsequent dates fixed therein thereafter fixed for the same purpose
8. That, hence, vide order dated 01.05.2024 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed for an explanation from the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Jabalpur as to why despite issuance of the production warrant the petitioner is not being produced.
9. That, pursuant thereto, on the next date of hearing on02.05.2024 the explanation was submitted by the Jail Superintendent stating therein that the petitioner could not be produced before the Court due to non-availability of the police force to escort the petitioner to the Court pursuant to the request / demand made in that regard."
Our next query is that, due to non-availability of Police Force cane provisions contained in Article 22 of the Constitution of India be violated which have been continuously held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to be mandatory. Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India provides that "(2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate within a period of 24 hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 01-04-2026 14:25:12 11 WP-27476-2025 the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate."
Now we would like learned Additional General to shade light that where was the authority of the Magistrate to detain the petitioner beyond 24 hours without being produced before the concerned Magistrate?
We also observed that, Superintendent of Police has very craftly evaded the main issue as to on which date petitioner was arrested after registration of the aforesaid three cases. Even, a team of two Additional Advocate Generals are not answering our direct question, directly.
It is also submitted that, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra & another (2026)1 SCC 500, it has been held that, the procedure of written communication of grounds of arrest will be prospective and shall not be retrospective. Thus, reading paragraphs 6, 57, 58 & 68 it is submitted that, this judgment having prospective application cannot be construed to have any negative impediment on the aspect of non-communication of grounds of arrest in writing. It is admitted that, grounds of arrest were not communicated in writing.
Since, learned Additional Advocate Generals are not ready with out queries and they need some times, matter is already part heard in great detail by this Bench, list this case on 20.03.2026.
Shri Mohammad Ali has an apprehension that there may be a Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 01-04-2026 14:25:12 12 WP-27476-2025 public holiday on account of holy festival of Eid-ul-Fitr on 20.03.2026. If that be the case, then case will be taken up on 24.03.2026 as part heard matter immediately after the regular Division Bench work.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
AR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 01-04-2026
14:25:12