S.480(3) BNSS Bail Conditions Not Applicable To Offences Punishable Up To 7 Yrs Imprisonment : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that for non-bailable offences punishable up to seven years, bail can be granted without imposing the conditions prescribed under Section 480(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar heard an appeal filed by an accused, who was granted bail in a case registered under the MP Excise Act (Act) for allegedly possessing illicit liquor.

Noting that the offence in question carries a maximum sentence of three years and is non-bailable, the Court set aside the order of the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had cancelled the Appellant's bail solely on the ground of alleged violation of conditions imposed under Section 480(3) of the BNSS.

The Court clarified that the conditions contemplated under Section 480(3) BNSS do not apply to non-bailable offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. Consequently, such conditions could not have been imposed in the first place, and therefore, no question of their violation could arise to justify cancellation of bail.

“…since the punishment for subsequent offence is less than five years, the conditions as stipulated in Section 480(3) BNSS are not imposable. Therefore, at present, cancellation of bail on account of involvement in the subsequent offence solely based on Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, is not justified.”, the court held.

Background

The High Court has granted bail to the Appellant-accused under Section 480 of BNSS (grant of bail in a non-bailable case); however, it imposed bail conditions prescribed under Section 480(3) of BNSS.

As per Section 480(3) of BNSS, if a person accused or suspected of commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter VII or Chapter XVII of the BNSS or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail, in that situation, the Court may be in a position to impose conditions as specified therein, i.e.,

"(a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter;

(b) that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected; and

(c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence, or

Any other conditions which the court deems fit in the interest of justice."

Later on, an application for cancellation of bail was filed by the State before the High Court, contending that the Appellant-accused had misused the liberty extended to him by indulging in the same offence, where he was again found in possession of 72 bulk liters of unauthorized liquor from his possession, after being released on bail by the High Court.

Noting that the accused had violated the bail conditions by being involved in another similar kind of offence, the High Court canceled the bail, stating that he has a propensity to commit the crime.

Aggrieved by the High Court's bail cancellation order, the accused appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning the bail order, arguing that the High Court erred in imposing conditions under Section 480(3), ignoring that fact that offence alleged against him was punishable up to three years, as the bail conditions would be imposed only when the offence(s) is punishable for not less than seven years.

Finding force in the Appellant's argument, the Court said that the High Court erred in cancelling the bail, as conditions stipulated under Section 480(3) BNSS should not have been imposed as the alleged offence contains only imprisonment up to three years.

The Court said that bail conditions shall be imposed only for non-bailable offences punishable with imprisonment for not less than seven years, which is not the case here.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: NARAYAN VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 426

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, AOR Ms. Harshita Lulla, Adv. Mr. Ritik Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ayush Haritash, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surjeet Singh, Adv. Mr. P. N. Razdan, Adv.