Accused Spent 43 Days In Custody Despite Bailable Offence: Rajasthan High Court Slams Magistrate And ADJ For Casual Bail Denial

“Liberty Is A Priceless Treasure, Not To Be Denied Mechanically” –  In a scathing indictment of procedural laxity and judicial indifference, the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur allowed bail to two women accused who were kept in police and judicial custody for 43 days in connection with a bailable offence, and directed disciplinary action against the Investigating Officer. The Court denounced the conduct of the Magistrate and Additional District Judge, holding that they had mechanically rejected bail pleas despite the offence being bailable.

Justice Anil Kumar Upman observed: “In bailable offences, bail is considered a matter of right, not discretion. If the accused is ready and willing to provide the necessary bail bonds or security, the police or court cannot refuse to grant bail.”

“Judicial Officers Cannot Act As Mere Post Offices For Prosecution” – High Court Cautions Magistrates On Remand Practice

The accused-petitioners were arrested on 16.06.2025, and bail was granted by the High Court only on 28.07.2025, after they had already undergone 43 days of detention. The Court observed with anguish that neither the Magistrate nor the ADJ acted judiciously. Despite being aware that only bailable offences were made out from the arrest memos and case diary, the bail applications were dismissed without proper application of mind.

Criticizing the role of the lower judiciary, the Court noted:

“The learned Magistrate as well as learned Additional District & Sessions Judge failed to exercise their discretion in right perspective and in a very casual manner, decided the bail applications… It is expected from the learned Magistrate to examine the material produced… and to apply judicial mind.”

“When accused is brought before them, the Magistrate is not to act as a mouthpiece or as a post office for the prosecution.”

The Court also pointed out that Section 480 and 483 of BNSS were invoked in disposing of the bail pleas, but Section 309(2) BNS, which deals with non-bailable offences, was never invoked in the actual orders — despite it being later cited as justification.

“Arrest Power Is Not A Tool Of Harassment” – Court Applies ‘Moti Ram v. State of MP’ Doctrine

Emphasizing the constitutional sanctity of personal liberty under Article 21, the Court invoked the principle laid down in Moti Ram v. State of MP (1978) 4 SCC 47 to highlight the misuse of arrest powers:

“The distinction between the power of arrest and its use is critical. The power granted by law must be exercised judiciously and with a sense of responsibility, not as a tool of harassment or oppression.”

The judgment emphasized that an arrest can only be made upon reasonable satisfaction of the complaint's genuineness, and a belief that the arrest is necessary to prevent tampering or re-offending.

“Arrest/detention has so many psychological impacts… particularly when made in absence of proper evidence. Such person faces emotional trauma, damage to reputation, and financial burden.”

High Court Expresses Regret For Delay In Listing Bail Plea, Takes Accountability

The Court candidly admitted that the delay in deciding the bail application (filed on 27.06.2025 and allowed on 28.07.2025) contributed to the continued incarceration of the petitioners. Justice Upman stated:

“To some extent this Court is also responsible for the detention of the applicants in a case of bailable nature as bail application could not be taken up on priority due to heavy pendency.”

This rare expression of judicial regret highlights the systemic backlog while also acknowledging that the constitutional right to liberty cannot be compromised by administrative delays

Directions Issued Against IO And Registry

Holding the Investigating Officer accountable for arresting the petitioners under bailable sections, the Court directed:

“Office is directed to send a copy of this order to DGP. The DGP is further directed to seek clarification/explanation from the concerned Investigating Officer… and take further action accordingly.”

The Registrar (Judicial), Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, was also directed to bring this matter to the notice of the concerned Hon’ble Guardian Judge, indicating the Court's intent to institutionalize accountability for such judicial oversights.

The Court concluded:

“In a case of bailable nature, the accused petitioner had to remain in police and judicial custody for about 43 days, for which the court expresses regret.”

It further observed that the petitioners were free to seek legal remedies for infringement of their fundamental rights.

This judgment stands as a powerful reaffirmation of bail as a constitutional right, especially in bailable cases. It:

• Establishes judicial obligation to scrutinize arrest records and apply mind before remand;

• Calls for strict accountability from police and judicial officers for liberty violations;

• Reaffirms that mechanical detention is unconstitutional, even if legally permissible;

• Signals judicial willingness to self-correct and introspect procedural failures.

This case is poised to become a benchmark in discussions surrounding pre-trial detention reform, BNSS compliance, and judicial accountability in India.

Date of Decision: 27 August 2025