Prolonged pre-trial incarceration violates Article 21, warranting bail despite the gravity of alleged fraud.

The applicant, Prashant Kushwaha, was arrested on December 22, 2024, in connection with Crime No. 32 of 2024 at P.S. S.T.F. Bhopal (Unit Jabalpur).

It is alleged that the applicant and a co-accused forged identification documents to secure vehicle financing and subsequently sold twelve such vehicles.

Charged under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC, the applicant sought regular bail following the dismissal of previous applications as withdrawn.

At the time of this fifth application, the applicant had been in custody for approximately 17 months, during which 15 out of 27 prosecution witnesses had been examined.

1. Whether the prolonged pre-trial incarceration of the applicant, a 25-year-old law student with no criminal antecedents, warrants the grant of regular bail under the principles of Article 21 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to parity with co-accused persons who have already been extended the benefit of bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding bail.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024 INSC 534), which held that Article 21's right to life and liberty is sacrosanct and overarching, even over restrictive statutory penal provisions.

It further cited Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) and Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024), establishing that prolonged incarceration without completion of trial violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial and warrants conditional liberty.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations—forgery and financial fraud—against the applicant’s fundamental rights. It noted that the applicant has no prior criminal history, is a student, and has already undergone significant jail time since late 2024.

The Court found that since the material prosecution witnesses had already been examined and the trial remained pending for 12 additional witnesses, there was no immediate threat of the applicant tampering with evidence or fleeing justice.

Influenced by high court precedents regarding Article 21, the Court reasoned that continuing custody without a definitive trial conclusion would be anathema to the rule of law.

The applicant was granted regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the same amount with specific conditions, including regular appearance at hearings, a prohibition on committing similar offences, and a strict mandate not to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.