Keeping Accused In Jail Pending Trial Amounts To Pre-Trial Conviction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail In Prohibition Case

"Keeping the accused behind bars is nothing but amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated principle of bail jurisprudence is that 'bail is a rule and jail is exception'," Gujarat High Court, in a significant order, held that keeping an accused behind bars during the pendency of a trial is equivalent to pre-trial conviction, emphasizing the fundamental principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

A single bench of Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar observed that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India must be protected where the investigation is substantially complete and the trial is likely to take time. The Court granted regular bail to two individuals accused of aiding and abetting the preparation of country-made liquor.

The case originated from an FIR registered at Alang Police Station, Bhavnagar, involving offenses under various sections of the Prohibition Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The three applicants were allegedly involved in the illegal preparation of liquor, with the prosecution claiming the activity was carried out in the field of the first applicant. While the first applicant withdrew his petition to approach the trial court after the chargesheet, the second and third applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The primary question before the court was whether the applicants, who were accused of aiding and abetting the manufacture of illicit liquor, were entitled to regular bail pending the filing of a chargesheet. The court also had to determine if continued incarceration was justified given the nature of the allegations and the progress of the investigation.

Court Outlines Essential Factors For Granting Bail

The Court began by reiterating the well-settled principles that govern the exercise of discretionary power to grant bail. Justice Suthar noted that the jurisdiction must be exercised based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, rather than in a mechanical manner.

Court Considers Nature Of Accusation And Public Interest

The bench emphasized that courts must consider several factors, including the nature of the accusation, the severity of the potential punishment, and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution. Furthermore, the court must assess any reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses, the likelihood of the accused absconding, and the larger interest of the public or the State.

No Justification For Continued Detention When Investigation Is Substantially Over

Regarding the specific facts of the case, the court observed that a substantial part of the investigation was already complete and there was nothing further to be recovered or discovered from the applicants. The bench noted that the applicants had been in custody since April 21, 2026, and that the conclusion of the trial would inevitably take a significant amount of time.

Limited Role Attributed To Applicants And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents

The Court highlighted that the primary allegation against the applicants was that they had aided and abetted the preparation of country-made liquor, and no other specific role was attributed to them. Crucially, the bench noted that the applicants had no past criminal antecedents and that none of the offenses alleged against them carried a sentence of death or life imprisonment.

"The applicants are presumed to be innocent till proven guilty," the Court remarked while noting that keeping them in custody would serve no further investigative purpose.

Personal Liberty Under Article 21 And The 'Bail Is Rule' Principle

Invoking the landmark precedents of the Supreme Court, the High Court referred to Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor. The bench underscored that the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is paramount in bail jurisprudence.

"Keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated principle of bail jurisprudence is that 'bail is a rule and jail is exception' the present application deserves consideration," the judgment stated.

Court Imposes Stringent Conditions While Granting Liberty

While allowing the application for the second and third applicants, the Court imposed several conditions to balance the interests of the prosecution. These include a territorial restriction prohibiting them from entering Ghogha Taluka for six months, except for court appearances or police station markings, and the surrender of their passports.

Court Directs Non-Interference With Investigation

The bench further directed the applicants to furnish their Aadhaar cards and contact details to the Investigating Officer and warned that any breach of conditions or involvement in further illegal activities would empower the Sessions Judge to cancel the bail. The Court clarified that its observations were preliminary and should not influence the trial court's final decision on the evidence.

The High Court allowed the bail application for Applicants No. 2 and 3 upon a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 each, while dismissing the plea for Applicant No. 1 as withdrawn. The ruling reinforces the judicial stance against prolonged pre-trial detention, particularly where the accused has a limited role and no prior criminal history.

Date of Decision: 12 May 2026