In India’s criminal justice system, the debate over liberty versus the interests of justice continues to define the contours of bail jurisprudence. While the law recognises that an accused is innocent until proven guilty, the practical experience of many undertrials reveals prolonged incarceration without conviction. In a landmark judgment dated 1st May 2025, the Delhi High Court in Amit Agrawal v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2025) reaffirmed that the guiding principle for pre-trial detention must be the test of necessity, not punitive sentiment or the gravity of allegations alone.
The judgment delivered by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani in a regular bail application underscores a fundamental constitutional principle—that the right to liberty under Article 21 cannot be held hostage to investigative or systemic delays. The court emphasised that unless there is a clear and compelling reason to detain an undertrial, bail must be granted. This ruling offers valuable insights into how courts must responsibly balance the rights of the accused with the interests of justice.
Understanding the ‘Necessity’ Test
The legal concept of bail, often misunderstood as leniency, is rooted in the idea of judicial custody being an exception, not the rule. The court categorically stated that the objective of pre-trial detention is not to punish, but merely to secure the presence of the accused during trial. The necessity test requires courts to ask: Is it truly necessary to detain this person before their guilt is proven?
The Delhi High Court made it clear that detention before trial is justified only when:
- There is a real apprehension of the accused fleeing justice.
- The accused is likely to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
- The offence involves such gravity or legislative restriction that bail is statutorily constrained.
Absent these factors, prolonged incarceration offends the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Amit Agrawal’s Case
The facts of the case presented a textbook situation for the application of these principles. Amit Agrawal had been in judicial custody for over 13 months in connection with an alleged conspiracy involving the misuse of unclaimed customs duty refunds. According to the prosecution, former customs officials, along with private individuals and a bank manager, forged official documents and used fake accounts to siphon nearly ₹10 crores from government funds. Agrawal was accused of being a hawala operator who routed funds through his accounts but was not involved in the actual forgery or origin of the fraudulent scheme.
Crucially, the chargesheet—comprising 10,000 pages and 49 prosecution witnesses—had already been filed over a year ago. The court noted that the trial had not yet begun, and there was no indication it would conclude anytime soon.
In this context, the court held that there was no longer any necessity to continue Agrawal’s detention. He had no criminal antecedents, had complied with earlier interim bail conditions, and there was no material to suggest he would abscond or tamper with evidence.
Pre-Trial Detention: A Constitutional Problem
The court’s observations echo the long-standing concern that delay in trial has turned into a form of punishment. Prolonged detention not only erodes the presumption of innocence but often imposes irreparable social, economic, and psychological costs on the accused.
Drawing from earlier Supreme Court pronouncements, especially Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [(2012) 1 SCC 40], the court reiterated that bail should not be denied merely due to the gravity of accusations. The idea that an accused must taste imprisonment as a lesson before trial is an anathema to the principles of natural justice.
The High Court also invoked the concept of “prisonisation”, a term popularised by sociologists like Donald Clemmer. It denotes the dehumanisation of individuals in custody—being reduced to numbers, losing access to family, work, and self-worth. The Court recognised that for economically weaker sections, the consequences are even more brutal: loss of livelihood, disintegration of families, and societal exclusion.
Bail is not an Acquittal
A core theme emerging from the ruling is that bail is not synonymous with exoneration. It is merely a procedural mechanism to uphold liberty pending trial. The court reaffirmed that:
- The presumption of innocence is a legal right, not a fiction.
- Pre-trial custody cannot be justified on moral grounds or as a deterrent.
- Courts must resist being influenced by the “textual gravity” of chargesheets and FIRs that bundle multiple penal sections to project seriousness.
Importantly, the court cautioned against being blinded by the voluminous nature of the investigation or the multi-layered structure of financial crimes. Instead, it advocated a focused and individualised assessment of the role of each accused and the evidentiary basis supporting it.
Judicial Role: Doctor, Not Coroner
One of the most striking analogies in the judgment is the exhortation that courts must act as “doctors” rather than “coroners.” This means that a proactive approach must be adopted in safeguarding the rights of the accused, rather than a retrospective realisation that the system has failed someone.
If a person has been in custody for over a year, the trial has not even begun, and the chargesheet runs into tens of thousands of pages, the delay itself becomes an abuse of process. Courts must intervene at such junctures not as a matter of charity but as a constitutional duty.
The Rule of Parity and Individualised Justice
The judgment also addressed the question of parity with other co-accused who were granted bail. Rather than blindly applying parity, the court analysed the role, conduct, and circumstances of each co-accused individually. While parity is a valid consideration, it cannot override the individual facts of the case. This careful balancing ensures that justice does not become mechanical.
At the same time, the decision sent a clear message: where similarly placed co-accused are out on bail and there is no risk of flight or interference, continued detention of another accused is unjust.
Economic Offences: A Different Lens?
There exists a common presumption that economic offences deserve stricter bail conditions due to their “white-collar” nature and potential scale. However, the court was categorical that economic crimes, while serious, do not displace the constitutional safeguards applicable to all offences.
The mere invocation of terms like “hawala operator” or “public exchequer loss” cannot be the basis to override personal liberty. Instead, courts must scrutinise whether the accused forged documents, misused official position, or masterminded the scheme. If such allegations are not prima facie established, continued detention becomes disproportionate.
Speedy Trial and Article 21
The right to a speedy trial has evolved as a crucial facet of Article 21. This right becomes especially relevant when the prosecution files voluminous charge sheets, examines dozens of witnesses, and indicates that the investigation is still ongoing. In such cases, the liberty of the accused cannot be held hostage to procedural inefficiency.
The Delhi High Court rightly noted that the failure to ensure a speedy trial cannot be compensated later. The cost of being found innocent after years in jail is a constitutional travesty.
Reaffirming Bail as the Rule
Ultimately, this judgment is a clarion call to recalibrate the bail-versus-jail debate. It reasserts that:
- Liberty is not an administrative concession but a judicial right.
- Bail decisions must pass the test of necessity, not public sentiment or moral censure.
- Courts must remain vigilant, lest procedural delay turn into a miscarriage of justice.
In a system where undertrial prisoners often exceed convicts in number, and where economic offences risk being politicised or over-prosecuted, the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court offer a necessary constitutional compass.
Conclusion
The ruling delivered by Justice Bhambhani is both a reminder and a roadmap. It reminds us that constitutional values must inform judicial discretion, especially in matters where liberty is at stake. And it charts a clear roadmap for how courts must assess bail applications—not through the lens of speculation, morality, or administrative ease, but through the touchstone of necessity, fairness, and individualised justice.
In reaffirming the ‘necessity test’ as the core of bail jurisprudence, the court breathes life into Article 21 and preserves the sanctity of due process in a system frequently burdened by delay and overreach. The decision will undoubtedly influence how courts across India handle bail in complex and high-profile cases in the years ahead.
