BNSS Section 483 | Gender and Prolonged Trial Delay Justify Anticipatory Bail for Elderly Female Accused : Rajasthan HC

In a significant order addressing bail jurisprudence, the Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to five female accused in a case pending for over 16 years. The Court emphasized the advanced age of the accused, their gender, and the improbability of trial interference as decisive factors, while directing stringent bail conditions including bi-monthly police station appearances.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The case originates from FIR No. 26/2010 dated 19.02.2010 registered at Police Station Jurhara, District Bharatpur. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 332, 353, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (PDPP Act), 1984, and Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The allegations involved rioting, assault, and attempted murder, with a specific accusation of firearm injury against the main accused.

Key Facts

• The FIR was lodged on 19.02.2010 at Police Station Jurhara, District Bharatpur
• The offences alleged include rioting, assault on public servants, and attempted murder
• The main accused, against whom firearm injury allegations were made, was convicted by the Trial Court on 05.12.2011
• The five female petitioners - Asri Alias Attri (91 years), Shabnam (57 years), Ayesha (51 years), Farzana, and Asgari (81 years) - surrendered before the Trial Court on 19.05.2026
• The case has been pending for over 16 years without trial conclusion

Procedural History

• 19.02.2010: FIR registered under multiple IPC sections and special laws
• 05.12.2011: Main accused convicted by the Trial Court
• 19.05.2026: Five female accused surrendered before the Trial Court
• June 2026: Bail applications (CRLMB No. 8592/2026, 8593/2026, and 8594/2026) filed before the Rajasthan High Court
• 19.06.2026: High Court passed the present order granting bail

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioners

• The petitioners are all females of advanced age, with two being octogenarians and one nonagenarian
• They surrendered voluntarily before the Trial Court on 19.05.2026
• They have been falsely implicated and did not commit the alleged offences
• The main accused has already been convicted, reducing the likelihood of trial interference
• The prolonged delay of 16 years warrants their release on bail

For the Respondent/State

• The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail applications

Relief Sought

The petitioners sought enlargement on bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), citing their gender, age, and the improbability of affecting the trial.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether Section 483 BNSS permits bail for female accused in a 16-year-old case, where the main accused has already been convicted, and the likelihood of trial interference is minimal.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioners

The counsel for the petitioners argued:

• The petitioners are female and of advanced age, making them less likely to abscond or interfere with the trial
• The main accused has already been convicted, and the trial against the petitioners is unlikely to proceed expeditiously
• The case is pending for over 16 years, which warrants their release on bail to prevent undue hardship
• The petitioners surrendered voluntarily, demonstrating their willingness to cooperate with the judicial process

For the Respondent

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail applications, though the specific grounds for opposition were not detailed in the judgment.

The Court's Analysis

The Court, while refraining from commenting on the merits and demerits of the case, observed:

• The main accused has already been convicted, and the trial against the petitioners is unlikely to conclude soon
• The petitioners are all females, including two octogenarians and one nonagenarian, reducing the risk of flight or trial interference
• The case is over 16 years old, and prolonged incarceration without trial would cause undue hardship
• The petitioners surrendered voluntarily, indicating their willingness to face trial

"Without making any comments on the merits and demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail."

The Court emphasized that bail is not a matter of right but a discretionary relief, and in this case, the gender, age, and delay justified the grant of bail. However, it imposed stringent conditions to ensure compliance with the judicial process.

The Verdict

The Rajasthan High Court allowed the bail applications filed under Section 483 BNSS. The petitioners were directed to:

• Execute a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 each
• Furnish two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court
• Appear before the Trial Court on every date of hearing and whenever called upon until the completion of the trial
• Mark their presence before the concerned SHO twice a month for the entire trial period, with the SHO maintaining a register of attendance
• Not take undue advantage of or misuse their liberty

The Court further directed that if the petitioners fail to appear twice in any month, their bail would stand cancelled automatically without further reference to the Court. Additionally, if the petitioners were found involved in any case under the Arms Act during the pendency of the trial, the Public Prosecutor could file an application for cancellation of bail.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Gender and Age as Mitigating Factors in Bail

• Courts may consider gender and age as significant factors when deciding bail applications, especially for female accused and elderly individuals
• The voluntary surrender of the accused can strengthen the case for bail, as it demonstrates cooperation with the judicial process
• Practitioners should highlight mitigating circumstances such as advanced age, gender, and lack of prior criminal record to bolster bail pleas

Delay in Trial Justifies Bail

• Prolonged delays in trial - especially cases pending for over a decade - can be a decisive factor in granting bail
• Courts are inclined to prevent undue hardship caused by prolonged incarceration without trial
• Lawyers should emphasize delay as a ground for bail, particularly when the accused are not flight risks or threats to the trial

Stringent Bail Conditions Ensure Compliance

• Courts may grant bail subject to strict conditions to ensure the accused’s continued cooperation with the trial

• Bi-monthly police station appearances and surety bonds are common conditions to prevent misuse of liberty

• Practitioners should advise clients on strict adherence to bail conditions, as non-compliance can lead to automatic cancellation of bail

• Bail is not automatic even in old cases, but gender, age, and delay can tilt the balance in favor of the accused

• Voluntary surrender and lack of trial interference risk strengthen bail pleas

• Strict compliance with bail conditions is non-negotiable to avoid cancellation