JABALPUR, India, June 9 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on May 8:

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ in the nature of habeas corpus alleging that he is under illegal detention of the respondent / authority.

02. Facts of the case reveal that the three persons namely; Salman, Imtiaz & Johar Hussain were apprehended on 03.12.2024 and from their possession 64.70 kg meat of wild species (Blackbucks & Chikara), one country-made pistol with cartridges, mobile phones and a vehicle were found. Thereafter, the accused were arrested and the case was registered at Forest Crime Case No.237/2022 on 21.08.2025. Thereafter, on the memorandum statement of these accused persons, the present appellant was arrested on 27.10.2025.

03. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has nothing to do with this crime. He has been arrested only on the basis of those three persons from whose possession meat and other articles were recovered. There is no recovery from the petitioner and he has no nexus with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the ground of arrest has not been informed to the petitioner which is mandatory under the laws. In support of the contention, reliance has been placed upon several judgments delivered by the Apex Court in the cases of Pankaj Bansal v/s Union of India (UOI) & Others reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576 , Prabir Purkayastha v/s State (NCT of Delhi) Neutral Citation : 2024 INSC 414, Vihaan Kumar v/s State of Haryana & Others reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799 , Mihir Rajesh Shah v/s State of Maharashtra & Others Neutral Citation : 2025 INSC 1288, Satender Kumar Antil v/s Central Bureau of Investigation & Another reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 162 and a prayer has been made that the State Authorities be directed to release the petitioner forthwith.

04. Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents / State has opposed the aforesaid prayer. It submits that the present petition is not maintainable as from nowhere, it appears that the present petition is a habeas corpus petition and the arrest of the present petitioner cannot be termed to an illegal arrest. To prop up his arguments, he has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Full Bench of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & Others v/s Tasneem Rizwan Siddique reported in (2018) 9 SCC 745. On such premises, a prayer has been made that that present petition be dismissed as not maintainable.

05. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

06. The issue which requires consideration by this Court is whether the present petition filed by the petitioner in the nature of habeas corpus is maintainable or not ?

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://mphc.gov.in/storage/upload/indore/MPHCIND/2026/WP/15777/WP_15777_2026_FinalOrder_08-05-2026.pdf)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.