Rajasthan High Court Expresses Regret Over 43-Day Custody Of Two Women In Bailable Case, Seeks Explanation From Magistrate Who Dismissed Bail

In this matter before the High Court, while granting bail to the petitioners, an explanation was sought from the concerned Judicial Magistrate who extended police or judicial remand of the petitioners and dismissed the bail application filed by them under Section 480 BNSS, although the accused-petitioners before him/her were accused of bailable offences.

The Single Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman stated, “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.”

“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 for making arrest of the petitioners in a case of bailable nature and take further action accordingly”, it ordered.

Advocates Rajesh Maharshi represented the Petitioner, while Public Prosecutor N.S. Dhakar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The arrest of the petitioners was made on June 16, 2025, under bailable offences as indicated in their arrest memo. As per the factual report/ case diary produced by the investigation agency before the magistrate as well as the ADJ, only bailable offences were found to be made out against the petitioners. The bail application was filed before the High Court, and the same was allowed. It was in such circumstances that the ADJ was directed to place his explanation for the dismissal of the bail application filed by the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the petitioners had to remain in custody for 43 days even though the alleged offences committed by the petitioners were bailable in nature: “In such a situation, to some extent this Court is also responsible for the detention of the applicants in a case of bailable nature as bail application filed by the petitioners could not be taken up on priority due to heavy pendency of bail applications before this court”, it said.

Referring to the explanation submitted by the concerned judicial officers, the Bench said, “This Court is not satisfied with the explanation as it has made an attempt in showing that the ingredients of Section 309(2) BNS were also present on the record, which being a non-bailable offence, led to the dismissal of the bail pleas. But a careful perusal of the clarification/explanation as well as bail rejection orders passed under sections 480 and 483 BNSS make it clear that Section 309(2) has not been mentioned anywhere in the bail rejecting orders and it is also evident that the bail petitions filed by the petitioners were disposed of in a mechanical manner.”

Asserting that the expression 'Personal Liberty' in Article 21 of the Constitution is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights, the Bench held, “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.”

“With anguish and pain, this Court observes here that 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, placed before them. In bailable offenses, 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”, it remarked.

As per the Bench, the Magistrate as well as the Additional District & Sessions Judge had adopted a casual approach in deciding the bail application filed by the petitioners under Sections 480 and 483 BNSS, respectively. “As a judge of a Constitutional Court, I have no hesitation in saying that in this case, whether it is the investigating officer or the advocate appearing for the accused petitioners and public prosecutors for State in the trial Court or the judicial officers involved in the judicial proceedings, everyone has failed to discharge their responsibility/duty properly”, it held.

The Court thus ordered that a copy of the order be sent to the DGP, who would then seek clarification/explanation from the concerned investigating officer and take further action accordingly. The Bench further directed the Registrar to bring the matter to the notice of the concerned Guardian Judge. “Petitioners are free to take legal recourse, if they feel that their fundamental rights have been infringed in this case”, it concluded.

Cause Title: Meetu Pareek v. State Of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JP:34119)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Rajesh Maharshi, Devanshu Saini

Respondent: Public Prosecutors N.S. Dhakar, Tapesh Agarwal

Click here to read/download Order