Allahabad High Court Affirms Bail as a Vital Right for Effective Defence Post-Prosecution Evidence

Court underscores bail as rule and jail as exception, emphasizing fair trial under Article 21 and judicial discretion in granting bail for defence preparation

In a landmark judgment delivered on October 14, 2025, the Allahabad High Court in the case of Asha v. State of U.P. has reiterated the constitutional and procedural sanctity of granting bail to accused persons for the purpose of preparing and conducting their defence after the conclusion or near conclusion of prosecution evidence. Justice Ajay Bhanot delivered the detailed judgment that addressed a critical issue in criminal jurisprudence: whether the right to collect defence evidence, formulate defence strategy, and effectively conduct the defence constitutes a valid ground for bail at advanced stages of trial.

The Court recognized that the right to bail, although sourced from statute, is deeply rooted in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to a fair trial. The judgment emphasized that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and any refusal of bail must be justified by compelling reasons such as the risk of the accused fleeing, tampering with witnesses, or obstructing justice.

Key principles elucidated in the judgment include:

• 1. Judicial Discretion and Parameters for Bail: The Court underscored that granting bail is a matter of judicial discretion, exercised judiciously and not as a matter of course. Factors such as the gravity of the offence, nature of evidence, conduct of the accused, criminal history, cooperation with investigations and trial, and the possibility of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence must be weighed carefully.
• 
  
• 2. Right to Fair Trial and Defence Preparation: The Court highlighted that fair trial is a constitutional guarantee and an accused must be given a reasonable opportunity to prepare and present their defence. Continued incarceration after the prosecution evidence has closed may incapacitate the accused from effectively gathering defence evidence and strategizing their case, thereby compromising fairness.
• 
  
• 3. Prosecution Bias and Socioeconomic Realities: The judgment noted systemic imbalances where the prosecution benefits from vast state resources and investigatory powers, while accused persons, especially from socioeconomically marginalized sections, often lack adequate means to collect defence evidence or secure effective legal counsel. This disparity necessitates judicial safeguards, including bail for defence preparation.
• 
  
• 4. Legislative Intent and Statutory Provisions: The Court interpreted Sections 313 and 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code (and their counterparts in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), which protect the accused’s right to be apprised of implicatory evidence and to tender defence evidence, as supportive of bail for defence preparation.
• 
  
• 5. Case Law Affirmations: The Court extensively reviewed Supreme Court precedents, including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, which affirm that bail for defence is a recognized safeguard to ensure justice and prevent punitive detention. The judgment distinguished precedents that caution against indiscriminate bail after trial commencement, clarifying that bail for defence is not a mechanical right but subject to facts and judicial discretion.
• 
  
• 6. Conditions to Prevent Abuse: The Court emphasized that bail granted for defence preparation is not unconditional. Courts may impose stringent conditions to prevent abuse of bail, such as prohibiting tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and may cancel bail if the accused acts oppressively or adopts dilatory tactics.

In the specific case of Asha, the applicant was granted bail on the grounds that prosecution evidence had closed, there was no risk of tampering with witnesses, the police investigation was biased and incomplete, and the accused had cooperated with the investigation and trial proceedings. The Court directed the trial court to ensure that bail conditions are reasonable and not onerous, especially considering the applicant’s socioeconomic status.

The judgment is a significant reinforcement of the principle that the right to a fair trial includes the right to effective defence, which may necessitate bail at appropriate stages of the trial process. It highlights the judiciary’s role in balancing the rights of the accused with societal interests, and in preventing miscarriage of justice through punitive pre-trial detention.

Bottom Line:

Grant of bail for preparation and conduct of defence after conclusion or near conclusion of prosecution evidence is a recognized ground, subject to judicial discretion based on facts and circumstances, to ensure a fair trial under Article 21.

Statutory provision(s): Sections 313, 233 CrPC; Sections 351, 256 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Article 21, Constitution of India

Asha v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2797640