New Delhi, April 27 In a significant ruling on cancellation of bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the Supreme Court has held that bail cannot be cancelled solely on the ground of involvement in a subsequent offence where the statutory conditions under Section 480(3) of the BNSS are not attracted.
A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar made the observations while allowing an appeal filed by Narayan against a Madhya Pradesh High Court order cancelling the bail earlier granted to him in an excise case.
The appellant had been granted bail on November 20, 2024, in a case registered at Police Station Kannod in Dewas district for an offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915. Subsequently, the prosecution approached the MP High Court seeking cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 483(2) of the BNSS, and the bail order was set aside.
Examining the scope of Section 480(3) of the BNSS, the Justice Maheshwari-led Bench clarified that the provision permitting imposition of stringent bail conditions applies only in cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or more, or offences under specified chapters of the BNSS.
"Having considered the provisions as contained in Section 480(3) BNSS, it is clear that if a person accused or suspected of commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more... is released on bail, in that situation, the Court may be in a position to impose conditions as specified therein," the apex court said.
In the facts of the present case, the Supreme Court stated that the punishment for the subsequent offence allegedly involving the appellant was less than five years and, therefore, the statutory conditions contemplated under Section 480(3) were not applicable.
"In the facts of the present case, 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," it held.
Setting aside the impugned Madhya Pradesh High Court order, the Supreme Court restored the appellant’s bail. However, the Justice Maheshwari-led Bench cautioned the accused against engaging in any further criminal activity and granted liberty to the state government to seek cancellation of bail afresh in accordance with law.
"We make it clear that the accused shall not indulge in any other activity of criminal nature. If he is found involved in respect to the provisions of Section 480(3) BNSS or otherwise, the state is at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail," the top court said.
The ruling assumes significance as it clarifies that cancellation of bail must strictly conform to statutory parameters under the BNSS and cannot be based merely on subsequent allegations unless the legal conditions prescribed by law are satisfied.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor