'Failure Of Duty': Rajasthan High Court Directs DGP's Inquiry Into Why Women Accused Of Bailable Offence Were Kept In Custody For 43 Days
The Rajasthan High Court expressed anguish and pain over two women who were kept in 43-day judicial custody despite being charged in bailable offences, after their bail pleas were dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate and ADJ in a casual and mechanical manner who failed to exercise discretion in a right way.Expressing regret, Justice Anil Kumar Upman directed the DGP to seek...
The Rajasthan High Court expressed anguish and pain over two women who were kept in 43-day judicial custody despite being charged in bailable offences, after their bail pleas were dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate and ADJ in a casual and mechanical manner who failed to exercise discretion in a right way.
Expressing regret, Justice Anil Kumar Upman directed the DGP to seek an "explanation/clarification" from the concerned investigating officer for making arrest of the petitioners in a case of a bailable nature and take further action accordingly, and also directed the Registrar to bring the matter to the notice of the concerned Guardian Judge.
The court had earlier granted bail to the women petitioners and had at that time sought an explanation was sought from the Judicial Magistrate who extended police or judicial remand of the petitioners and dismissed the bail plea as well as from the ADJ who had also dismissed the bail pleas. Perusing the explanation the court said that the same was unsatisfactory.
The court thereafter said:
"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".
"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. 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," the court added.
It was opined that personal liberty was a priceless treasure for a human being, and essentially a natural right. Arrest/detention made in absence of proper evidence had many psychological impacts on the accused.
The Court stated that the power available under Section 35, BNSS, that allowed police officers to arrest without a warrant, had to be used sparingly, especially in bailable offences. To elaborate the distinction between power of arrest and its use, reference was made to Supreme Court case of Moti Ram v State of MP and it was held that,
“In light of the Moti Ram vs State of MP reported in (1978) SCC 47, the distinction between the power of arrest and its use is critical, emphasizing that the power granted by law must be exercised judiciously and with a sense of responsibility, not as a tool of harassment or oppression. The case highlighted that while police possess the power to arrest, this power is not absolute and should not be used as a routine tool, but rather as a measure of last resort, demanding strict adherence to the principles of justice and individual liberty.”
The Court highlighted that the arrest of the petitioners was made on June 16, 2025, for bailable offence, and bail application was filed on June 27, 2025, which was allowed only on July 28, 2025. It was held, in such a scenario even the Court was responsible since the bail application filed by the petitioners could not be taken up on priority due to heavy pendency before this Court.
In this background, 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 for making arrest of the petitioners in a case of bailable nature and take further action accordingly".
The Court held that the petitioners were free to take legal recourse in case it was felt that their fundamental rights were infringed.
Title: Meetu Pareek & Anr. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 301