Justice Farjand Ali, Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court: Imposition Of Extrastatutory Conditions, Followed By Custodial Remand Due To Its Nonfulfillment, A Grave Dereliction Of Quasi-Judicial Responsibility
|The Rajasthan High Court quashed the Order of the Executive Magistrate, declaring the arrest and detention of the Petitioners as illegal.
The Rajasthan High Court held that the imposition of extra-statutory conditions, followed by custodial remand due to their nonfulfillment, is a grave dereliction of quasi-judicial responsibility and cannot be condoned as a mere lapse in judgment.
The Court quashed the Order of the Executive Magistrate, declaring the arrest and detention of the Petitioners as illegal. The Court observed that the conduct of the concerned Executive Magistrate and the associated police officials reflected a “distressing departure from the principles of fairness, legality, and procedural propriety that underlie the concept of rule of law.”
A Single Bench of Justice Farjand Ali remarked, “In the present case, the simultaneous preventive and penal proceedings, unjustified custodial remand, and imposition of extralegal bail conditions clearly fall foul of these safeguards.”
Advocate Divik Mathur appeared for the Petitioners, while AAG Deepak Chaudhary represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Petitioners had approached the Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the impugned order. The order had directed their release on bail in proceedings under Sections 126, 170, and 130 of the BNSS, 2023, only upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 each along with a character certificate to be produced by two sureties, one of whom had to be a close family member.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted, “It is pertinent to record that the impugned order dated 13.03.2025, insofar as it imposed the condition of character certificates for release, was subsequently modified later on the same day, and the petitioners were thereafter released on bail. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the Assistant Commissioner of Police appeared in person and submitted a written reply tendering an unconditional apology for the imposition of such an extralegal condition. He further assured this Court that no such practice would be repeated in future. While this Court accepts the apology extended by the officer — noting that contrition is a step towards institutional accountability — it must be firmly observed that quasi-judicial functions cannot be discharged in such a casual or uninformed manner.”
“The Executive Magistrate is not an agent of the police but an officer of the law, dutybound to act within the confines of legal authority and constitutional norms. The imposition of extrastatutory conditions, followed by custodial remand due to their nonfulfillment, is a grave dereliction of quasi-judicial responsibility and cannot be condoned as a mere lapse in judgment,” the Bench stated.
The Court referred to its Judgment in Pawan Gaur v. State of Rajasthan (2025), where the dangers inherent in mechanically issuing preventive orders without application of judicial mind, especially when the officer concerned continues to operate with a policing mindset, rather than adopting the neutrality and legal orientation expected of a quasi-judicial authority was emphasised.
Consequently, the Court ordered that “The impugned order dated 13.03.2025 passed by the Executive Magistrate (ACP Headquarters) in Case No.1255/2025 is hereby quashed and set aside.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Mohammad Abid & Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:25157)