The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that prolonged pre-trial detention in cases involving non-bailable offences under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is unjustified where the accused has no criminal history, no recovery against them, and the trial is likely to be lengthy. This order reinforces the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, particularly when the charges do not involve direct perpetration of the offence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Moh. Ashraf S/o Mohammad Umar Mansuri, aged 38, is accused in FIR No. 0350/2025 lodged on 01.08.2025 at Nimbahera Police Station, District Chittorgarh, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), with additional charges under Sections 319 and 337 of BNS. The allegations pertain to the sale of a plot while allegedly knowing that the title document (patta) was forged. Crucially, the petitioner is not accused of fabricating the forged patta, but only of selling the property with knowledge of its falsity.
Key Facts
- The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 12.04.2026
- No recovery of any incriminating material has been made from the petitioner
- The investigation has been completed and the challan has been filed
- The offences alleged are triable by a Magistrate
- The petitioner has no prior criminal antecedents
- The petitioner’s counsel argues that the allegations, even if accepted prima facie, do not establish direct participation in forgery
Procedural History
- 01.08.2025: FIR No. 0350/2025 lodged at Nimbahera Police Station
- 12.04.2026: Petitioner taken into judicial custody
- Before 29.06.2026: Investigation concluded; challan filed
- 29.06.2026: Bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS (equivalent to old Section 439 CrPC)
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks bail on the grounds that: (i) he is not the alleged forger; (ii) no recovery exists against him; (iii) the trial will be protracted; (iv) he has no criminal record; and (v) the offences are non-serious and triable by a Magistrate.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether bail can be granted under Section 483 of BNSS to an accused in non-bailable offences under BNS, 2023, where the investigation is complete, no recovery is made, the accused has no criminal antecedents, and the trial is likely to be lengthy, despite the gravity of the alleged offences.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not accused of preparing the forged patta, but only of selling the property with knowledge of its falsity. He emphasized that the offences are triable by a Magistrate, the investigation is closed, no incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner, and he has no prior criminal record. He further argued that continued detention for an indefinite period, pending a protracted trial, serves no legitimate purpose and violates the principle of proportionality.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application but conceded that the allegation of preparing the forged patta does not lie against the petitioner. No counter-evidence or arguments were presented to dispute the petitioner’s custody duration, lack of antecedents, or the likelihood of a lengthy trial.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the allegations, the stage of proceedings, and the personal circumstances of the petitioner. It noted that the petitioner is not alleged to be the forger, but only a transferee aware of the forged document - a distinction that materially affects the degree of culpability. The Court observed that the offences under BNS, 2023, are triable by a Magistrate, indicating a lower severity profile. The Court further noted the absence of any recovery, criminal history, or risk of tampering with evidence.
"Considering the fact that the offences alleged in the present FIR are triable by the Magistrate and there are no criminal antecedents, in the considered opinion of this Court, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period as the trial will take sufficiently long time."
The Court emphasized that bail is not a reward for innocence but a recognition of the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty. It held that pre-trial detention must be justified by necessity, not merely by the existence of charges. The Court explicitly declined to express any opinion on the merits of the case, clarifying that its decision was confined to the bail stage.
The Verdict
The bail application was allowed. The petitioner, Moh. Ashraf S/o Mohammad Umar Mansuri, shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, to the satisfaction of the trial court. He must appear before the trial court on every hearing date and whenever summoned until trial completion. The Court clarified that its observations are strictly for bail purposes and shall not prejudice the trial court’s evaluation of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Is Not Dependent on Direct Perpetration
- Practitioners may argue that mere participation in a transaction involving a forged document, without direct fabrication, warrants bail where no recovery or antecedents exist
- The distinction between preparer and beneficiary of forgery is legally significant under BNS, 2023
Lengthy Magisterial Trials Favor Bail
- In cases triable by Magistrates, where trial duration is likely to exceed 12 - 18 months, prolonged custody without conviction is increasingly untenable
- Courts are expected to weigh the duration of anticipated trial as a standalone factor in bail decisions
No Recovery + No Antecedents = Strong Bail Case
- Absence of recovery from the accused and clean criminal record are now established as decisive factors in non-bailable cases under BNS
- Prosecution must actively demonstrate flight risk or evidence tampering to oppose bail - mere allegations are insufficient
