The Supreme Court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order granting habeas corpus relief and held that the writ was wholly misconceived. It ruled that when an accused is arrested pursuant to a valid FIR and a chargesheet has been filed, the custody is lawful and cannot be termed illegal merely because bail has been denied. Habeas corpus is a constitutional remedy against detention without authority of law and cannot be used as an alternative forum to challenge rejection of bail. The Court observed that the accused had already filed multiple bail applications, all of which were dismissed by the High Court. Entertaining a habeas corpus petition thereafter amounted to bypassing the established criminal procedure. By examining the merits of the prosecution case under the guise of habeas corpus, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court cautioned that such orders undermine due process and set a dangerous precedent, reiterating the clear distinction between remedies of bail and habeas corpus.