Sureties From Government Employees in Preventive Proceedings Deny Bail in the Guise of Grant: Rajasthan High Court

The petitioner's wife lodged an FIR against him under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 494 and 143 IPC, among others, while he was abroad. He returned on 12.08.2024, was arrested and granted bail by the ACJM, Bhadra (para 2). On 09.01.2025, while trying to travel abroad again, he was stopped at the airport and taken to Police Station Bhadra, where proceedings under Sections 126, 135 and 170 BNSS were started, allegedly under the influence of the complainant's family (para 3). On 10.01.2025 the SDM, Bhadra, required three bonds of Rs 1,00,000 each from government employees and bound him for six months; he remained in custody until 14.01.2025 (paras 1, 3).

The Head Constable's complaint disclosed no reasonable apprehension of a cognizable offence: the petitioner had only been asked about his identity and travel purpose and allegedly answered unsatisfactorily, which does not attract preventive jurisdiction, so invoking Sections 126, 135 and 170 BNSS was arbitrary and unsupported by material (para 5). Requiring sureties from three government employees has no statutory backing, disregards Article 21 and kept the petitioner in custody beyond necessary limits; it is a denial of bail in the guise of grant. The detention and the torture allegations call for disciplinary scrutiny (para 6). Applying its earlier decision in Pawan Gaur, which held that preventive provisions cannot be invoked mechanically and that an Executive Magistrate must apply an independent mind, the Court held the facts squarely covered (para 7). No provision requires solvency, character or domicile certificates on pain of custody, and demanding them to prolong detention violates Article 21 (paras 8-9). Preventive proceedings started after bail to prolong custody or stop a person leaving the country are mala fide (para 10). A spouse who wants to stop the other from travelling abroad must seek an injunction from the competent court (para 11).