The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard a plea filed by Haji Abdul Razzak, who has alleged that successive criminal cases registered against him in Madhya Pradesh have been used to keep him in custody since 2021.
The Special Leave Petition has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Pawan Reley. It challenges the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s May 18, 2026 order in a writ petition seeking relief against his continued detention and the registration of successive criminal cases.
During the hearing, counsel for Razzak submitted that approximately 30 FIRs had been registered against him since 2021, alleging cheating and related offences.
“The moment he gets bail in one case, he is then foisted with a second FIR,” counsel submitted, alleging that the pattern amounted to an abuse of the petitioner’s rights. Counsel further argued that the Madhya Pradesh High Court had itself noted a pattern of successive FIRs intended to ensure that the petitioner remained in custody. He said that the petitioner had obtained bail in several cases but continued to remain incarcerated because of proceedings in other cases.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the cases involved a combination of complaints by private individuals and cases registered by the State. He also referred to the invocation of the National Security Act (NSA), arguing that proceedings under the Act had been initiated without the requisite approval of the advisory board in three instances, as noted by the High Court.
The petitioner’s counsel sought protection against further arrests in cases similar to those already pending against him, arguing that the repeated registration of FIRs was preventing him from securing release despite bail orders.
Supreme Court Questions Request for Blanket Protection
The Bench however observed that it could not grant a blanket direction requiring the police to obtain the Court’s permission before registering any future FIR or making an arrest. The Court observed that such a direction could not prevent the police from acting in the event of an entirely new and serious offence. It observed:
“
“You can’t expect somebody to get a blanket order that don’t register an FIR without the leave of the court. You commit rape, you commit murder, the investigating agency will come here to (18:27) seek leave of the court to register a case against you.”
Counsel responded that they are seekingprotection against further arrests in cases falling within the pattern of the existing 30 FIRs, arguing that the petitioner’s continued detention despite securing bail in numerous cases raised serious concerns under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“
“But, if there is a case which fits into this square of the existing 30 FIRs, then I would be requesting, My Lords, for some protection. Otherwise, this is the plight of the man, My Lords. Despite… This is Article 21, My Lords, at its weakest. I get 21 bail orders and yet I cannot come out. I am not some hardened criminal, My Lords, who has acted against the interests of the State that I have to be kept like this,” counsel submitted.
The Bench questioned the petitioner’s counsel about the status of bail applications across the 30 FIRs, including how many cases had resulted in anticipatory bail, how many bail applications had been rejected, and in how many cases the petitioner had not yet applied for bail. Counsel clarified the position case by case, while the Bench pointed out that in certain cases the petitioner could approach the competent court for bail.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju also questioned whether habeas corpus would lie when bail had been rejected by a competent court, asking, “If bail is rejected by a competent court, does the habeas corpus lie?”
The Bench ultimately granted the petitioner liberty to apply for bail in cases where anticipatory bail had been rejected or bail had not yet been sought, and permitted him to place additional material on record regarding subsequent developments. The matter was directed to be listed in January 2027.