The Rajasthan High Court recently expressed regret over a 43-day custody of two women accused in a bailable offense, slamming the Magistrate and Additional District Judge (ADJ) for their casual approach in denying bail.
Justice Anil Kumar Upman 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. Judicial Officers Cannot Act as Mere Post Offices for Prosecution High Court Cautions Magistrates on Remand Practice.
Case Details: The accused women were charged with bailable offenses related to a sextortion case, where they allegedly extorted money by threatening to file false rape cases. Despite the offenses being bailable, the Magistrate and ADJ denied bail, leading to their prolonged custody.
High Court’s Observations: Justice Anil Kumar Upman criticized the Magistrate and ADJ for adopting a casual approach, stating that bail is a matter of right in bailable offenses. The court emphasized that the accused should have been granted bail as a matter of course, given the nature of the offenses.
Action Taken: The High Court granted bail to the accused women and directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to seek clarification from the investigating officer for arresting them despite the offenses being bailable. The court also asked the Registrar to bring this matter to the notice of the concerned Guardian Judge.
Implications: These ruling highlights the importance of adhering to legal procedures and respecting the rights of accused individuals. It also underscores the need for judicial officers to exercise their discretion judiciously and not deny bail arbitrarily, especially in cases involving bailable offenses.
The Rajasthan High Court’s decision serves as a reminder of the principles governing bail in bailable offenses and the need for courts to apply these principles consistently and fairly.
