Piyush Babubhai Aslaliya vs State of Gujarat
1. Heading of the Order
Supreme Court of India Order dated 04-12-2025 in Criminal Appeal Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 16457 of 2025, along with Criminal Appeals arising from SLP(Crl) Nos. 16416/2025 and 18702/2025.
Citation: Piyush Babubhai Aslaliya vs. State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 16457 of 2025 and connected matters, Order dated 04-12-2025 (Supreme Court of India).
2. Related Laws and Sections
The order engages with the following legal provisions and principles:
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act): The appellants were implicated for the illegal manufacture of Mephedrone, a contraband substance under the Act.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): The order primarily deals with the grant of regular bail under Section 439 CrPC, pending trial. It also touches upon the evidentiary value of confessional statements made to police.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The order implicitly references Section 25 (confession to police officer not to be proved) and Section 30 (consideration of confession of co-accused), as the defence challenged the prosecution's reliance on statements of co-accused.
Constitutional Jurisprudence (Article 21): The decision is fundamentally underpinned by the right to life and personal liberty, particularly the aspect of pre-trial liberty and the presumption of innocence.
3. Basic Order Details
Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction).
Bench: Honourable Mr. Justice Manoj Misra and Honourable Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Parties: Appellants - Piyush Babubhai Aslaliya and Manoj @ Bala Laxman Patil; Respondent - State of Gujarat.
Date of Order: 04 December 2025.
Nature of Impugned Order: Orders of the High Court of Gujarat rejecting the appellants' applications for regular bail.
4. Facts of the Case
The appellants were accused in two interconnected FIRs (C.R. No.B 11210015200084/2020 and 11210015200082/2020) registered with the DCB Police Station, Surat. The prosecution alleged their involvement in the illegal manufacture of Mephedrone. The contraband was physically recovered from a co-accused, Sanket Aslaliya. The prosecution’s case against the present appellants was primarily based on the confessional statements of co-accused persons, with no direct recovery of contraband from them. Piyush Babubhai Aslaliya had been in custody since 25 September 2020, and Manoj @ Bala Laxman Patil since 16 June 2021. A co-accused, Pragnesh Prawnbhai Thiimmar, had been granted bail by the Supreme Court on 11 August 2025.
5. Core Issue Before the Supreme Court
Whether the appellants, who had suffered prolonged incarceration (over 5 and 4.5 years respectively) pending trial, were entitled to bail on grounds of parity with a similarly placed co-accused and the nature of evidence against them, despite the trial being at an advanced stage.
6. Ratio Decidendi and Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and granted bail. The ratio decidendi rests on the twin pillars of the principle of parity and the right to liberty during protracted trials. The Court’s reasoning is detailed as follows:
Principle of Parity: The Court accorded significant weight to the fact that a co-accused (Pragnesh Prawnbhai Thiimmar) involved in the same set of facts and incidents had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court. The State did not dispute this fact. Denying bail to the appellants while a co-accused was free would create an unjust and discriminatory situation, violating the essence of equal treatment under the law.
Prolonged Pre-Trial Incarceration: The Court took judicial notice of the lengthy period of custody already undergone by the appellants (since 2020 and 2021). This extended pre-trial detention, especially in the context of a still-unconcluded trial, raised serious concerns about the deprivation of liberty.
Nature of Evidence: The Court noted the appellants’ submission that their complicity was based not on direct recovery but on the statements of co-accused, which have limited evidentiary value at the trial stage. Without commenting on the merits, the Court acknowledged this as a relevant factor in the bail consideration.
Rejection of the State’s Contention: The State’s sole objection was that the trial was at an advanced stage. The Court found this insufficient to outweigh the combined force of the factors of parity, long incarceration, and the nature of the evidence. The right to bail pending trial is not extinguished merely because a trial is nearing completion, particularly when other compelling factors favour release.
7. In-Depth Analysis of the Order's Core Principle
Title of Analysis: Parity and Liberty: The Supreme Court’s Bail Jurisprudence in Protracted Trials
This order is a significant exposition of the Supreme Court's approach to bail in cases involving long-standing pre-trial detention. The core principle established is that the principle of parity among co-accused is a potent factor in bail adjudication, and when coupled with prolonged incarceration, it creates a compelling case for release, irrespective of the trial's advanced stage.
The Court’s analysis reflects a nuanced balancing act:
Elevating Parity to a Decisive Factor: The order reinforces that "parity" is not a mere technicality but a substantive principle of fair play. When the factual matrix and alleged roles are substantially similar, denying bail to one while granting it to another erodes public confidence in the even-handedness of the justice system. The Court treats parity as a standalone, strong ground in such contexts.
Quantifying Deprivation of Liberty: By specifically mentioning the dates of arrest (2020 and 2021), the Court emphasizes that liberty has a quantifiable value. Four to five years of life spent in custody before a verdict is a severe deprivation. The Court implicitly applies a proportionality test: is further pre-conviction detention justified when the trial, though advanced, has no definite end date?
Demystifying "Advanced Stage" of Trial: The order clarifies that the "advanced stage" argument cannot be a talismanic justification for denying bail. The State must show something more—like a high risk of absconding, witness tampering, or the commission of further crimes. In the absence of such specific perils, the general assertion of an advanced trial cannot trump fundamental liberty.
Separation of Bail and Trial Merits: The Court’s standard formulation—"without expressing any opinion on the merits"—is crucial. It safeguards the trial process from prejudice while fulfilling the appellate court's duty to protect citizens from potentially unjustified pre-trial imprisonment based on weak or questionable evidence.
8. Final Outcome and Directions of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court passed the following operative directions:
Granted Leave and Allowed Appeals: Leave was granted in the Special Leave Petitions, and the connected Criminal Appeals were allowed.
Set Aside High Court Orders: The impugned orders of the Gujarat High Court, which had rejected the appellants' regular bail applications, were set aside.
Granted Bail: The appellants, Piyush Babubhai Aslaliya and Manoj @ Bala Laxman Patil, were ordered to be released on bail pending the conclusion of the trial.
Delegated Conditions: The specific terms and conditions of the bail bond were to be determined and imposed by the concerned Trial Court, based on the facts and circumstances of the case.