Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Raj) 329

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Nurul Islam, Son of Shri Abdul Jabbarar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2038 of 2026
Decided On : 21-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr.K.C. Sharma
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG assisted by Mr. Jitender Singh Rathore, Add.GA., Ms. Nehal Goyal, Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma & Mr. Anirudh Singh.
Counsel who appeared on instructions : Mr. Bharat Vyas, ASG assisted by Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Mr. Rakesh Choudhary, Ms. Anima Chatturvedi & Ms. Anushka Khandelwal Mr. V.R.S. Bajwa, Sr. Adv. assisted by Ms. Savita Nathawat Mr. Tanay Goyal for Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AG Mr. Rajesh Sharma with Ms. Kamini Pareek.

An approver who has been examined as a witness can be granted bail under the court’s inherent powers when the detention period becomes unreasonable or the trial is delayed, as the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and speedy trial applies to all individuals, including foreign nationals.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 306(4) - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Bail - Approver - Detention of an approver who has been examined as a witness - Statutory provision for detention of an approver until termination of trial is not absolute - High Court has power to enlarge an approver on bail in exceptional circumstances, especially where trial is not concluding and principal accused are already released on bail, to prevent violation of Article 21. (Paras 8, 11, 18, 31)

(B) Bail - Foreign nationals - Right to life and dignity - Article 21 of Constitution of India is applicable to foreign nationals - Procedure for bail involves informing registration authorities to enable appropriate legal compliance - Denial of bail to a foreign national simply due to nationality or visa status is not permissible when constitutional rights of liberty and speedy trial are at stake. (Paras 16, 26, 28, 33)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, who are foreign nationals, were accused of serious offences. They were granted a tender of pardon and became prosecution witnesses. Their statements were duly recorded. Despite the principal co-accused being released on bail, the petitioners remained in judicial custody for over two years, with the trial proceeding at a very slow pace. They filed for bail, challenging their continued detention.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the continued detention of an approver after the recording of their statement, in the absence of a visible end to the trial, constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to life and liberty. The court observed that the principles of fair trial and dignity apply equally to foreign nationals. It was held that an approver can be granted bail in exceptional cases under the court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process or to secure the ends of justice.

Issues: Whether an approver is entitled to be released on bail after their testimony is recorded, even if the trial has not concluded; whether the custody of an approver can continue indefinitely when principal accused persons have already been released; and whether foreign nationals can be released on bail with appropriate conditions to ensure compliance with migration laws.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the statutory provision does not mandate the indefinite detention of an approver once their statement is recorded. Drawing on constitutional guarantees, it ruled that prolonged detention without trial violates the right to life and liberty under Article 21. Consequently, in cases involving inordinate delay, the court exercises its inherent powers to grant bail, ensuring the prosecuting agency informs relevant administrative authorities for compliance with immigration regulations.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. approver bail criteria and the balancing of custody vs. trial status. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 13)
2. high court's inherent power under section 482 crpc to grant bail beyond crpc restrictions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 24)
3. procedures for granting bail to foreign nationals involving immigration authority notification. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. fundamental right to speedy trial and dignified life under article 21 for all persons. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
5. final directions for bail execution and expediting judicial trial proceedings. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)

Order :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. The instant petition has been preferred for releasing the petitioner on bail in connection with F.I.R. No.319/2024, registered with the Police Station Jawahar Circle, District Jaipur City (East) for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 471 & 120B IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid F.I.R. was registered against certain accused persons with regard to committing the alleged offence of illegal kidney transplantation and human trafficking, wherein the petitioners and the other co-accused persons were arrested on 23.04.2024. Counsel submits that the petitioners became approver for the prosecution side and on the basis of their statements recorded by the Police, the co-accused persons were arrested and charge- sheeted. Thereafter, the co-accused persons were granted benefit of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., but the petitioners have not been released on the sole ground that they became approver for the prosecution side in the instant case. Counsel submits that when the trial did not proceed any further, the petitioners approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.5888/2025, with a prayer for releasing them on bail, but this Court while deciding the aforesaid petition, vide its order dated 24.11.2025, issued a direction to the Trial Court to record the statements of the parties in pursuance of Section 306(4) Cr.P.C. Now, since the statements of the petitioners have been recorded and they are in custody since 23.04.2024, therefore, it is prayed that the petitioners be enlarged on bail till conclusion of the trial.

3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General and Public Prosecutor oppose the prayer and submit that as per the provisions contained under Section 306(4) Cr.P.C., the petitioners are required to be kept in custody until the conclusion of the trial and accordingly, the instant petition submitted by the petitioners is liable to be rejected.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that after the impugned F.I.R. No.319/2024 was registered with Police Station Jawahar Circle, District Jaipur (East) and the investigation came into motion, the petitioners were apprehended by the Police and subsequently, they became approver. On the basis of their statements so recorded by the Police, the co-accused persons were arrested and thereafter, the petitioners were also charge-sheeted along-with the co-accused persons for the above stated offences.

6. This fact is not in dispute that the principal accused persons, who were involved in the alleged kidney transplantation racket, have been granted benefit of regular bail by the concerned Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. This fact is also not in dispute that the petitioners have been in custody since 23.04.2024 and when the trial did not proceed further, the petitioners approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.5888/2025 with a prayer to release them on bail, but the said petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2025, while issuing directions to the Trial Court to record the statements of the petitioners and liberty was also granted to the petitioners to renew their prayer for grant of bail, after