Conceptualising Defence Strategy, Gathering & Adducing Evidence Are Valid Grounds For Grant Of Bail: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court held that conceptualising a defence strategy, gathering, and adducing of defence evidence are valid grounds for grant of bail at the appropriate stage in a trial.

The Court was deciding a batch of Bail Applications in which the issue was whether gathering of defence evidence, preparation of defence strategy, and effectively prosecuting the defence case in a trial can be a ground for granting bail.

A Single Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed, “In the wake of the preceding discussion, conceptualising a defence strategy, gathering and adducing of defence evidence is a valid ground for grant of bail at the appropriate stage in a trial and in the facts and circumstances of a case. In fact grant of bail for defence (in appropriate circumstances and at the apposite stage of trial) is the most critical safeguard evolved by the Courts to secure equal and fair justice to all accused persons especially those belonging to disadvantaged classes.”

The Bench added that grant of bail to an accused for conducting defence after considering all relevant factors in the circumstances of a case and at the appropriate stage of trial would realize the legislative intent of Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) i.e., Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and Section 233 of CrPC (Section 256 of BNSS) and shall secure one of the most indispensable ingredients of a fair trial which is founded in the constitutional law discourse on Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Senior Advocates N.I. Jafri, Dharmendra Singhal, Advocates Sadrul Islam Jafri, Shivendra Singhal, Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Sheshadri Trivedi, Vikrant Rana, Madhu Ranjan Pandey, Irshad Ahmad, Aishwarya Pratap Singh, Amiruddin Siddique, Tripurari Pal, M.P. Srivastava, Shailesh Pandey, Mohit Kumar Jaiswal, Shashi Kumar Mishra, Nasiruzzaman, Gireesh Chandra Sharma, Yadvendra Dwivedi, Rahul Saxena, Bharat Singh, Sandeep Pandey, Narendra Singh, Azhar Hussain, Jitendra Singh, Saket Jaiswal, and Samrat Vikram Singh represented the Applicants/Accused, while Additional Advocate General (AAG) Ashok Mehta, AGAs Paritosh Kumar Malviya, and Chandan Agrawal represented the Respondent/State.

In all the Bail Applications, the prosecution evidence was near conclusion or was closed. In all the Bail Applications, the primary ground for grant of bail was to conduct effective defence of the case.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in the above regard, said, “Statutory procedures and constitutional guarantees protect the right of an accused to defend himself in a criminal trial. But the baneful practices in the criminal justice system impede the realization of defence rights of an accused. Constitutional Courts cannot be purblind to these issues which impact the fairness of a trial and rights of an accused.”

The Court noted that the need of an accused to gather resources to get legal advice and collect evidences will also be a factor for consideration and the issue whether the accused has effective pairokars to professionally collect defence evidence, obtain quality legal advice, and prosecute his defence in the trial in an efficacious manner may also need a look in.

“At that stage the Court is also liable to examine whether further detention of the accused will become punitive. … In the facts and circumstances of a case, the Court may additionally impose stringent conditions to prevent the abuse of the liberty of bail and to ensure the presence of the accused”, it remarked.

The Court clarified that preparation of defence does not automatically guarantee enlargement of an accused on bail, nor can bail be granted for defence on a mechanical basis.

“Effective conduct of defence can be a ground for bail at the appropriate stage when examined in the composite light of other relevant parameters. … Grant of bail for defence will thus be a result of judicial discretion guided by cumulative consideration of the aforesaid relevant factors. It is however clarified that the above parameters are neither exhaustive nor are liable to be applied in a rigid formulaic manner”, it further held.

The Court was of the view that the exercise of judicial discretion for grant of bail to conduct defence requires application of mind to all relevant facts and circumstances of each case to advance the cause of justice and prevent the possibility of injustice.

Conclusion

The Court also said that consistency in Orders may not always save the Courts from error, and divergence in Judgments may often lead the judicial process to truth.

“The following arguments made by Shri Madhu Ranjan Pandey, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned A.G.A.-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Bail Application and directed the Trial Court to fix the sureties after due application of mind.

Cause Title- Asha v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:184205)

Click here to read/download the Judgment