Recently, the Rajasthan High Court has taken strong exception to two women being kept in custody for 43 days despite facing only bailable charges. Justice Anil Kumar Upman, expressing “anguish and pain,” said the incident reflected a failure of duty by all stakeholders involved, from investigating officers to prosecutors and even the magistrates who heard the bail pleas.
The two women had applied for bail but their pleas were turned down first by the Judicial Magistrate and then by the Additional District Judge. Criticising these refusals as “casual and mechanical,” the Court observed, “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.”
By the time the High Court granted them bail, the women had already spent 43 days behind bars. Justice Upman noted, “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.”
The Court stressed that “personal liberty is a priceless treasure,” warning that powers of arrest under Section 35 of the BNSS must be exercised sparingly. While referring to the case Moti Ram v. State of MP, the Court reiterated that “the power granted by law must be exercised judiciously and with a sense of responsibility, not as a tool of harassment or oppression.”
While directing the DGP to seek an explanation from the investigating officer and take further action, the court also acknowledged systemic delays, noting that even the High Court could not prioritize the bail plea due to heavy pendency. The petitioners, it said, remain free to pursue further legal remedies if they feel their fundamental rights were violated.
Case Title: Meetu Pareek and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Case No: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8249/2025
Coram: Justice Anil Kumar Upman
Advocate for Petitioner: Advs. Rajesh Maharshi, Devanshu Saini
Advocate for Respondent: PP N.S. Dhakar, PP Tapesh Agarwal
Picture Source :
