Section 479 BNSS Does Not Mandate Automatic Bail After Expiry Of Statutory Detention Period: J&K&L High Court

The Court observed that the statutory provision creates eligibility for consideration of bail once the threshold period is crossed, but the discretion of the Court to continue detention remains intact under the second proviso to Section 479 BNSS.

The Court clarified that the provision only makes an accused eligible to seek bail, while the Court retains discretion to continue detention for reasons to be recorded.

The ruling came from Justice Shahzad Azeem while deciding a bail application filed under Section 483 BNSS by an accused facing trial for offences under Sections 8, 21, 29 and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

For context, Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 limits the period for which an undertrial prisoner can remain in custody during trial. It provides that an accused may be released on bail after undergoing detention for one-half of the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence, while a first-time offender may seek bail after completing one-third of the maximum sentence.

However, the Court may, for reasons recorded and after hearing the Public Prosecutor, direct continued detention beyond the prescribed period.

Background:

The petitioner, Gurjit Singh, sought bail in connection with a case registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Jammu, alleging transportation of narcotic substances in a truck.

According to the prosecution, the NCB received information from the Station House Officer of Police Station Bahu Fort regarding transportation of a narcotics consignment in the said vehicle. Acting on the information, an NCB team along with the police laid a naka where the truck was intercepted.

Upon interception, the driver and conductor identified themselves as Gurjit Singh (the petitioner) and Ravi Kumar respectively. The prosecution alleged that a huge commercial quantity of heroin was recovered from the possession of the accused persons. Following investigation, the petitioner and the co-accused were sent up for trial before the Court of Special Judge (NDPS cases), Jammu, where charges were framed for offences under the NDPS Act.

During the pendency of trial, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking bail primarily on the ground that he had undergone detention for more than one-third of the maximum punishment prescribed for the offences and therefore was entitled to bail under the first proviso to Section 479 of BNSS as a first-time offender.

The prosecution opposed the application, contending that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the provision and that the gravity of the offence involving commercial quantity of narcotics disentitled him from claiming bail.

Court's Observations:

The High Court examined the scope and object of Section 479 BNSS, which deals with the maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner may be detained. The Court observed that the provision seeks to advance the constitutional principle of speedy trial, by prescribing thresholds of detention beyond which an undertrial may seek release on bail.

However, the Court noted that Section 479 creates two categories of undertrial prisoners. The first proviso provides that a first-time offender may seek bail after undergoing detention for one-third of the maximum punishment, while the provision also contemplates different thresholds for other accused persons.

The Court further observed that the second proviso to Section 479 preserves the discretion of the Court to order continued detention even after the statutory threshold is crossed, if the circumstances of the case justify such course.

Interpreting the provision, the Court held that both provisos must be read conjointly and harmoniously with the main provision. The Court reasoned,

“… if on completion of one one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment, there will be an automatic release solely on completion of threshold period, it may allow release even in serious and grave offences, therefore, such an interpretation would lead to absurdity and will take away the discretionary power of the Court, which is neither intended by the Legislature nor is discernible from the reading of Section 479 of BNSS”

The Court opined that the correct interpretation is that completion of the prescribed period merely creates eligibility for consideration of bail, but the Court must still examine the facts of the case, hear the prosecution and record reasons if detention needs to continue.

The Court further noted that the petitioner was facing trial for offences involving commercial quantity of heroin under the NDPS Act, where the statutory restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply and bail is to be granted only in exceptional circumstances.

In the absence of any material indicating the petitioner's innocence or other circumstances warranting release, the Court held that mere prolonged incarceration or completion of the statutory threshold period cannot override the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

In view of the above analysis, the High Court held that the petitioner could not claim an indefeasible right to bail solely on the basis of Section 479 BNSS.

Holding that the statutory conditions governing bail in NDPS cases remained applicable and that no exceptional circumstances were made out, the Court declined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed.

Case Title: Gurjit Singh v. Narcotics Control Bureau, Jammu Zone

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment