Introduction:
In the case of Meetu Pareek & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan [2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 301], the Rajasthan High Court delivered a scathing critique of the judicial and investigative lapses that led to the prolonged incarceration of two women in a case involving only bailable offences. Justice Anil Kumar Upman expressed anguish and regret over the fact that the petitioners were forced to spend 43 days in judicial custody, despite the law being clear that bail in such matters is a matter of right and not discretion. The Court held that the investigating officer, the advocates, the public prosecutors, and the subordinate judiciary collectively failed to safeguard the petitioners’ liberty. Emphasizing that personal liberty is a priceless treasure protected by the Constitution, the Court drew upon precedents like Moti Ram v. State of MP (1978) SCC 47 to highlight the critical distinction between the “power to arrest” and the “use of such power.” Ultimately, the Court directed the Director General of Police to seek explanation from the concerned investigating officer and called upon judicial officers to exercise bail jurisdiction with greater care and responsibility.
Arguments of the Petitioners:
The petitioners, represented by their counsel, argued that their prolonged incarceration was not only unjust but unconstitutional. They emphasized that the offences for which they had been arrested were bailable, meaning that release on bail was a matter of statutory right under the Code of Criminal Procedure and now also reaffirmed in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Despite this, their bail pleas were dismissed at multiple stages—first by the Judicial Magistrate and later by the Additional District Judge—in a mechanical fashion, without appreciating the legal mandate that bail in bailable cases cannot be refused when the accused is willing to furnish the required bond. The petitioners asserted that their arrest on 16 June 2025 was unnecessary, excessive, and carried out in violation of constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21. They also argued that the subsequent judicial remand orders reflected non-application of mind and abdication of judicial responsibility, as the Magistrate and the ADJ did not engage with the settled law. Further, they argued that the delay in hearing and deciding their bail applications aggravated their suffering, since their liberty remained curtailed for more than six weeks in violation of their fundamental rights.
Arguments of the State:
The State, through its counsel, attempted to defend the actions of the investigating officer and the subordinate judiciary, but could not satisfactorily explain why bail was not granted promptly in a matter where it was mandatory. The State contended that the police officer had acted under the powers available to him under Section 35 of the BNSS, which permits arrest without a warrant in certain circumstances. However, it was conceded that such powers are to be exercised judiciously and not as a matter of course. The State also admitted that heavy pendency before courts may have delayed the hearing of the bail applications, but it argued that no deliberate attempt was made to infringe upon the petitioners’ liberty. It sought to assure the High Court that remedial steps would be taken in light of the Court’s observations and directions.
Court’s Judgment and Observations:
Justice Anil Kumar Upman delivered a strongly worded judgment that went beyond the facts of the individual case to address the systemic shortcomings in the functioning of the criminal justice system. The Court noted that the offences alleged against the petitioners were bailable, and therefore bail could not have been refused once the petitioners expressed their readiness to furnish bonds. The Judicial Magistrate and the Additional District Judge were castigated for failing to exercise judicial discretion in the correct perspective and for rejecting the bail applications casually and mechanically. The Court remarked: “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 offences, 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.”
The Court also lamented that all stakeholders—the investigating officer, the advocates for the petitioners, the public prosecutors representing the State, and even the judicial officers—had failed to discharge their duty, thereby leading to the violation of the petitioners’ fundamental rights. The judgment stressed that personal liberty is not merely a statutory privilege but a natural right, intrinsically tied to human dignity. The prolonged and unnecessary incarceration of the petitioners, the Court said, inflicted psychological trauma in addition to physical confinement, and such lapses undermine public confidence in the justice delivery system.
Drawing upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in Moti Ram v. State of MP (1978) SCC 47, the Court elaborated on the critical distinction between the power of arrest and its use. While the law may confer upon the police the power to arrest, such power cannot be exercised indiscriminately or as a tool of harassment. Arrest, particularly in bailable offences, should be a last resort and not the first instinct of the police. Justice Upman underlined that constitutional courts must step in to prevent the misuse of such powers, which have devastating consequences for individual liberty.
The Court highlighted the timeline of events to demonstrate how the petitioners’ liberty was unnecessarily curtailed. The arrest took place on 16 June 2025, the bail application was filed on 27 June 2025, and it was only on 28 July 2025 that bail was finally granted. This 43-day period of custody, the Court noted, was not justifiable by any standard of constitutional governance. The Court candidly acknowledged that even the High Court bore some responsibility since the bail application could not be prioritized due to heavy pendency of cases, but reiterated that such systemic issues could not become an excuse for trampling upon fundamental rights.
In terms of directions, the Court ordered that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Director General of Police, who was tasked with seeking an explanation or clarification from the investigating officer responsible for arresting the petitioners in a case of bailable nature and to take further action accordingly. The Registrar was directed to place the matter before the concerned Guardian Judge for appropriate administrative consideration. The Court further observed that the petitioners were free to explore additional legal remedies if they believed their fundamental rights had been violated and that appropriate compensation or accountability measures could be pursued.
Ultimately, the judgment serves as a reminder that liberty cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative convenience or casual judicial discretion. The High Court’s strong words are expected to serve as guidance to subordinate courts and investigating agencies to exercise greater care in cases involving personal liberty.