The path-breaking judgment was delivered in a petition filed by Omprakash T Batra, Shakuntala Batra, Rambhagat and Santosh U Mali. Omprakash and Shakuntala, accused in a sessions case in Kheda and Rambhagat and Santosh, accused in two separate sessions cases in Surat, at a time of their acquittal, were asked by the respective sessions judges to submit bail for a period of one year.

Rambhagat and Santosh remained in jail due to their inability to furnish bail for up to 5-6 months in spite of their acquittal.

On top of such a direction by the sessions judges, a Gujarat High Court Division Bench earlier had held that at a time when accused are released on bail, pending investigation or trial, the bail should furnished for at least one year, even after theiracquittal.

Therefore, O P Batra, Shakuntala, Rambhagat and Santosh U Mali preferred a writ petition before Gujarat High Court which the Division Bench of Justices R K Abichandani and K R Vyas referred before the Full Bench.

On August 14, the Full Bench held that the prior Division Bench judgment in the case of State Government vs Harish L Solanki does not apply, was unconstitutional and beyond the scope of the inherent powers vested in a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Also, the Full Bench set aside directions given by the sessions judges to the extent that the accused were asked to furnish bail in spite of their acquittal, and held that henceforth it shall not be competent for a trial court while acquitting an accused to ask him to furnish bail. This essentially was held in view of the mandatory nature of provision under Section 364 (1) (d) of CrPC & Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

While T S Nanavati and Jayesh A Dave appeared for the petitioners, additionalpublic prosecutor D N Patel appeared for the State Government.