S.479 BNSS | Trial Courts Must Not Mechanically Adjourn Bail Pleas Of Undertrials Who Completed One-Half Of Maximum Imprisonment: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the trial courts must promptly pass orders and must not mechanically adjourn bail applications moved in cases covered by Section 479 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, where the undertrial prisoners have already undergone one half of the maximum imprisonment. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that in case a judge proceeds on leave, it must be brought to the notice of the concerned Link Judge that such cases are to be taken up on priority, either on the next date or at the shortest possible date.Section 479 states that where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial, for offences not punishable with death or life imprisonment, has undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment shall be released on bail. The proviso states that where such person is a first-time offender, he shall be released on bail if he has undergone detention for the period extending up to one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment. The Court was dealing with a bail plea moved by a 60 year old man accused in a POCSO case. The FIR was lodged on the basis of the complaint filed by victim's mother. The first and second bail applications of the accused were dismissed by the trial court last year. It was his case that due to old age, he was suffering from various health ailments and had already undergone more than one and half years in jail. The Court was informed that while the bail application was filed by him in November, 2024, the jail authorities had forwarded a letter to the Trial Court in December last year regarding completion of his one-third of the maximum sentence which may be awarded to him in case of his conviction in the case. Along with the said letter, an application for grant of bail was also sent by the Jail authorities to the Trial Court.His counsel submitted that the Trial Court had failed to adjudicate the bail application for the last two months and the benefit of Section 479 of BNSS was being denied to the accused. Noting that the plea of the accused remains un-adjudicated before the Trial Court till date, the Court said:“… it is discouraging to note that despite the mandate of Section 479 of BNSS, as noted above, and a report in this regard having already been sent by the Jail authorities and a bail application having also been moved, the learned Trial Court had adjourned the matter on several occasions in a mechanical manner, and even after recording on 08.01.2025 that the report qua the previous involvement of the accused had been received, a date of almost 20 days was given in the present case.”Justice Sharma directed the Trial Court to decide the bail application of the accused, in terms of Section 479 of BNSS, within seven days. Advocates for Applicant: Mr. Shikhar Khare, Mr. Shahzeb Ahmed, Mr. Shashi Kumar, Mr. Adeel Ahmad Khan, Mr. Wasil Khan & Mr. Utkarsh AdvocatesTitle: SULEMAN SAMAD v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHICitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 112Click here to read order

S.479 BNSS | Trial Courts Must Not Mechanically Adjourn Bail Pleas Of Undertrials Who Completed One-Half Of Maximum Imprisonment: Delhi HC

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags