The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that the mere existence of multiple criminal antecedents cannot justify denial of bail when the trial is likely to be protracted and no material evidence remains to be recovered. This ruling reinforces the principle that pre-trial detention must be the exception, not the rule, even in serious offences.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Manohar Lal @ Motiya S/o Kishanlal, aged 27, is accused under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 for the alleged theft of a motorcycle. The case originated from FIR No. 225/2025, registered at Purani Abadi Police Station, Sri Ganganagar, on an unspecified date in 2025. The petitioner was arrested and has been in custody since then.
Key Facts
- The petitioner is currently lodged in Sub Jail, Anupgarh
- The charge-sheet has been filed and no further recovery is pending
- The petitioner has 18 prior criminal cases against him, all dating from before 2023
- In several of those prior cases, the petitioner had previously been granted bail
- No new incriminating evidence or outstanding forensic or material recovery is alleged to be pending
- The trial is expected to take a considerable amount of time
Procedural History
- 2025: FIR No. 225/2025 registered at Purani Abadi Police Station
- Date unspecified: Arrest of petitioner
- 28.03.2026: Trial Court rejected bail application primarily on grounds of petitioner’s criminal antecedents
- 05.06.2026: Bail application filed before Rajasthan High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought bail on the grounds that: (1) the trial will be lengthy, (2) no recovery is pending, (3) he has already served prolonged custody, and (4) his prior antecedents are old and he had been granted bail in those matters.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the number of prior criminal antecedents, standing alone, can justify the denial of bail under Section 483 BNSS, particularly when the trial is prolonged, the charge-sheet is filed, and no material evidence remains to be recovered.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the trial court erred in denying bail solely on the basis of 18 prior cases, most of which predated 2023. He emphasized that the petitioner had been enlarged on bail in several of those cases, indicating no flight risk or threat to witnesses. He further submitted that the charge-sheet had been filed, no recovery was pending, and prolonged custody without trial would violate the petitioner’s right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. He relied on Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. to argue that gravity of offence and number of cases cannot override the presumption of innocence.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, contending that the petitioner’s 18 pending criminal antecedents demonstrated a pattern of criminal conduct and posed a risk of reoffending or tampering with evidence. He argued that Section 303(2) BNS is a grave offence and that bail should be denied to deter repeat offenders.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the balance between the right to liberty and the state’s interest in ensuring trial integrity. It noted that the charge-sheet had been filed, no recovery was pending, and the petitioner had been in custody since the filing of the FIR. The Court observed that the trial court’s refusal was based exclusively on the petitioner’s antecedents, without any specific finding that he would abscond, tamper with evidence, or threaten witnesses.
The Court then turned to the Supreme Court’s decision in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P., which held that the mere existence of multiple criminal cases or the gravity of the offence cannot be the sole basis for denying bail. The Court quoted:
"The factors outlined in the case of Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar for testing the legality of an order granting bail are absent in the order impugned. The materials available do not justify arriving at the conclusion that the order impugned suffers from non-application of mind or the reason for granting bail is not borne out from a prima-facie view of the evidence on record. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail."
The Court emphasized that Section 483 BNSS empowers the High Court to grant bail even where the trial court has refused, particularly when custody has been prolonged without trial. It held that the petitioner’s prior antecedents, while relevant, could not override the absence of any current risk factors. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not been convicted in any of the prior cases, and bail had been granted in several.
The Verdict
The bail application was allowed. The petitioner, Manohar Lal @ Motiya, shall be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, to the satisfaction of the trial court. He must appear before the court on all hearing dates until trial completion. The Court clarified that if the petitioner commits another offence of a similar nature or misuses bail, the prosecution may apply for cancellation, which shall be decided on merit.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Antecedents Alone Are Not a Bar to Bail
- Practitioners must argue that prior cases, especially those where bail was previously granted, do not establish current risk
- Courts must assess conduct during pendency, not just historical record
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to show specific risk of flight, tampering, or reoffending
Prolonged Custody Demands Judicial Scrutiny
- When charge-sheet is filed and no recovery is pending, prolonged detention without trial violates Article 21
- Courts must consider time elapsed since arrest and estimated trial duration
- Delay in trial cannot be used to justify continued incarceration
Section 483 BNSS as a Corrective Mechanism
- High Courts must exercise this power liberally where trial courts rely on generic grounds
- The provision is not merely appellate but corrective of arbitrary detention
- Bail should be the norm unless concrete, case-specific risks are demonstrated
