Article 21 | Prolonged Pre-Trial Custody Overrides Gravity of Offence, Justifies Bail Under Section 483 BNSS: MP HC Jabalpur

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that prolonged pre-trial incarceration, even in cases involving serious non-bailable offences, may violate the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, thereby justifying the grant of regular bail. This ruling underscores the primacy of constitutional rights over statutory restrictions in criminal procedure when due process is unduly delayed.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The applicant, Prashant Kushwaha, is accused in Crime No. 32 of 2024 registered at Police Station S.T.F. Bhopal (Unit Jabalpur), Madhya Pradesh, for offences under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations centre on a large-scale forgery and financial fraud scheme involving the manipulation of identification documents of multiple complainants to secure vehicle financing, followed by the sale of the financed vehicles.

Key Facts

• The applicant is 25 years old and is currently pursuing a law degree.
• He has no prior criminal record or history of evading legal process.
• The investigation revealed that the applicant, along with co-accused Indrajeet Kushwaha, forged identity documents of four complainants - Geeta Kushwaha, Ankur Namdev, Indar Singh and Anurag Choudhary - to obtain vehicle loans.
• A total of 12 vehicles were allegedly sold to co-accused Praveen Soni.
• The applicant was arrested on 22.12.2024 and has remained in judicial custody since then.
• The final report was submitted after completion of investigation.
• As of the date of the order, 15 out of 27 prosecution witnesses have been examined.
• The trial is ongoing and is expected to take considerable time to conclude.
• The co-accused Praveen Soni was granted bail on 06.05.2026 in M.Cr.C. No. 13660/2026.
• Another co-accused, Indrajeet Kushwaha, was granted bail on 19.05.2026 in M.Cr.C. No. 21370/2025.
• The applicant has no history of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
• The applicant’s family has roots in the region and he has responsibilities towards them.

Procedural History

• 22.12.2024: Applicant arrested and placed in judicial custody.
• Date unspecified: Four prior bail applications filed and withdrawn.
• 12.05.2026: Fifth bail application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
• 13.05.2026: Order signed by the court (judgment dated 12.05.2026).

The Parties' Positions

For the Applicant

• The applicant is falsely implicated on mere suspicion.
• No offence has been established at this stage; the veracity of allegations remains to be tested in trial.
• He has a clean record, is a law student, and has no tendency to flee or tamper with evidence.
• The prolonged custody of over 15 months without trial infringes his right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
• Co-accused have already been granted bail, creating an inequitable situation.
• Jail incarceration is causing undue hardship to a young individual with family obligations.

For the Respondent/State

• The offences are serious, involving forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy.
• The gravity of the offences militates against the grant of bail.
• However, the State counsel conceded that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and there is no evidence of risk of flight or tampering.

Relief Sought

The applicant sought regular bail, arguing that his continued incarceration without trial violates constitutional rights and that the conditions for bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, are satisfied.

The Legal Issue

Can an accused person be denied regular bail on account of the gravity of non-bailable offences under the IPC, when the trial has been unduly delayed and the accused has been in custody for over 15 months without conviction, and there is no risk of flight, tampering, or recidivism?

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant/Petitioner

The applicant relied on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) SCC OnLine SC 50 and Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) INSC 534 to argue that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 overrides statutory restrictions on bail when prolonged pre-trial detention infringes the right to a speedy trial. He emphasized that the trial is likely to take considerable time, with 12 witnesses yet to be examined, and that the co-accused have already been granted bail. He submitted that the applicant’s clean record, educational pursuit, and family responsibilities further support the grant of bail.

For the Respondent/State

The State opposed bail on the ground of the seriousness of the offences under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. However, the State counsel conceded that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, no history of evading process, and no likelihood of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The State did not dispute the length of custody or the delay in trial.

The Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a constitutional analysis of the right to a speedy trial as an essential component of Article 21. It cited Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh to affirm that constitutional courts are not bound by restrictive statutory provisions if the accused’s fundamental rights under Article 21 are infringed. The Court observed:

"A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused under-trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way."

The Court further relied on Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024), where the Supreme Court held that failure to conclude a trial within a reasonable time militates against the fundamental right under Article 21, and that conditional liberty may override statutory embargoes in such circumstances.

The Court noted that the applicant has been in custody for over 15 months, with the trial still in its early stages and 12 witnesses yet to be examined. The Court found no evidence of risk of flight, tampering, or recidivism. The fact that co-accused had been granted bail further weakened the State’s opposition. The Court emphasized that the applicant’s status as a law student and his lack of criminal history support the conclusion that he is not a threat to the judicial process.

The Court explicitly declined to comment on the merits of the case or the veracity of the allegations, stating that the decision was based solely on the constitutional right to liberty and the delay in trial.

The Verdict

The applicant succeeded. The Court granted regular bail to Prashant Kushwaha upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the same amount. The bail is subject to five conditions: (1) attendance at all hearings; (2) no commission of similar offences; (3) no intimidation or inducement of witnesses; (4) no tampering with evidence; and (5) compliance with Section 346 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 regarding witness attendance. The bail order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial, subject to cancellation by the trial court for breach of conditions. The trial court is directed to ensure the conditions are reproduced on the bond and explained to the accused and surety.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Prolonged Custody Overrides Statutory Barriers

• Practitioners must now argue that any pre-trial detention exceeding 12 - 15 months in non-bailable cases warrants bail under Article 21, irrespective of the nature of the offence.
• The burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate why bail should be denied despite prolonged delay, not merely to assert the gravity of the offence.

Co-Accused Bail as a Relevant Factor

• When co-accused are granted bail under similar circumstances, denial of bail to one accused becomes prima facie arbitrary and violates Article 14.
• This creates a strong ground for bail applications in multi-accused cases where disparities exist.

Constitutional Rights Trump Procedural Restrictions

• K.A. Najeeb and Ankur Chaudhary now form a binding precedent for bail applications in all High Courts.

• Courts must conduct a balancing test: duration of custody vs. risk of flight/tampering vs. seriousness of offence.

• The mere existence of a non-bailable offence is no longer a conclusive bar to bail if Article 21 is violated.

• Always cite Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) INSC 534 and Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) as controlling authority.

• File bail applications with detailed affidavits on trial delay, witness list, and custody duration.

• Highlight the accused’s educational status, family responsibilities, and clean record as mitigating factors.