Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla, while hearing Tyagi’s second bail application, observed that the accused had been in judicial custody since June 7, 2025, with charges yet to be framed and the case not even committed to the Sessions Court. The court emphasized that detention prior to conviction cannot be treated as punishment, reiterating that penal consequences arise only after a finding of guilt.
During the proceedings, the High Court had earlier sought a report from the trial court after noting repeated and unusually long adjournments. It was recorded that the accused was not produced on December 15, 2025, with the next hearing initially scheduled for February 10, 2026, later deferred to April 16, 2026. The trial court’s report acknowledged the delays and assured that unnecessary adjournments would not be granted in cases involving undertrial prisoners.
The State opposed the bail plea, arguing that Tyagi had used his Facebook account to post content praising Pakistan and insulting the Indian National Flag, asserting that such conduct by an Indian citizen constituted a grave matter affecting national sovereignty and integrity. The earlier rejection order dated September 8, 2025, had also observed that the posts appeared intended to incite secession and threaten the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.
However, in its latest ruling, the High Court relied on a Supreme Court judgment delivered on May 18, 2026, in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi versus National Investigation Agency, Jammu. The apex court had reaffirmed that bail is not merely a statutory privilege but a constitutional principle rooted in Articles 21 and 22, supported by the presumption of innocence as a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence.
The Supreme Court had observed that the principle of “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” flows directly from constitutional protections and is essential to a system governed by the rule of law.
Applying this precedent, the Allahabad High Court noted that although the allegations against the accused were serious, they could not override his fundamental rights under the Constitution. The court further stated that continued pre-trial detention could not be justified when the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future. It also noted that Tyagi is charged under Sections 152, 192, 197(1), and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, with Section 152 carrying a maximum punishment of life imprisonment or up to seven years.
Finding that a prima facie case for bail existed, the court granted relief subject to strict conditions, including that the accused must not tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, influence the trial process, or fail to appear before the court on scheduled dates.
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s continued emphasis on safeguarding personal liberty while balancing concerns of national security and the integrity of ongoing investigations.
About The Author
.jpg)
.jpg)
Comment List