Rajasthan High Court: In a bail application filed by two women kept in detention for 43 days in bailable offence after their bail applications were rejected by Judicial magistrate and Additional district and sessions judge, a Single-Judge Bench of Anil Kumar Upman, J., while granting bail expressed anguish and pain, observing that the judicial officers failed to exercise their discretion properly, thereby leading to the accused being kept in custody for 43 days. The Court also observed that the application filed by the accused could not be taken up on priority due to heavy pendency of bail applications before it, thereby leading to further delay.
Background
The accused, two women, were arrested on 16-06-2025. They were accused of bailable offences, as indicated by their arrest memos and the case diary submitted by the investigating agency. The accused filed bail applications under Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) before the concerned Judicial Magistrate and under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, both of which were dismissed. They had to remain in custody for 43 days despite the bailable nature of their alleged offences.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted its dissatisfaction with the explanation submitted by the judicial officers for dismissing the bail application of the accused. The Court noted that an attempt was made to show that the ingredients of a non-bailable offence under Section 309(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) were also present but this fact not mentioned anywhere in the bail rejection orders. The bail petitions were disposed of in a mechanical manner.
The Court emphasized the sanctity of personal liberty, calling it a priceless treasure and a natural right. Referring to Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court noted that the expression Personal Liberty has the widest amplitude and includes the right to live with dignity.
The Court noted that in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, the Supreme Court held that Article 21 protects the right of life and personal liberty of citizen not only from the executive action but from the legislative action also. A person can be deprived of his life and personal liberty if two conditions are complied with, first, there must be a law and secondly, there must be a procedure prescribed by that law provided that the procedure is just, fair and reasonable.
The Court reiterated that in bailable offences, bail is a matter of right, not discretion, and cannot be refused if the accused is ready and willing to provide the necessary bail bonds.
The Court noted that,
“Every arrest has a victim and an accused. Every arrest is also a relief and a pain. It is a critical part of the justice system. All arrests have to be justified and be based on evidence and pave the way for justice. It is to be scrutinized closely by all supervisory authorities accountable including judiciary. Arrest/detention has so many psychological impacts on the personality of the accused or on the person who has been detained particularly when such arrest or detention has been made in absence of proper evidence. Such person faces emotional and psychological trauma, damage to reputation and future opportunities as well as financial burden.”
The Court pointed out that at the stage of remand, the magistrate should not act as a mouthpiece or as a post office for the prosecution but must apply a judicial mind to the material produced by the investigating agency. The power of arrest granted to the police should be used sparingly along with avoiding unnecessary force, especially in bailable offences or when less intrusive means are available. The use of the power must be justified and not a mere formality, as arrests can cause significant harm to a person’s reputation and self-esteem.
The Court noted the decision in Moti Ram v. State of M.P., (1978) 4 SCC 47, to highlight that the power of arrest is distinct from its use and must be exercised judiciously, responsibly and as a last resort, not as a tool of harassment or oppression.
The Court observed that both the Judicial Magistrate and the Additional District & Sessions Judge had adopted a casual approach. The Court expressed regret for the 43-day detention of the accused, noting that its own heavy pendency of bail applications contributed to the delay.
The Court noted that everyone has failed to discharge their responsibility/duty properly in this case. The Court directed a copy of the order to be sent to the DGP, who was further directed to seek an explanation from the concerned investigating officer for making an arrest in a bailable case. The accused were granted the liberty to take legal recourse if they felt their fundamental rights had been infringed.
The accused were granted bail.
[Meetu Pareek v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 4174, decided on 27-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner(s): Rajesh Maharshi and Devanshu Saini, Advocates
For the Respondent(s): N.S. Dhakar, PP, Tapesh Agarwal, PP
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
