A woman may receive bail under Section 480(1)’s first proviso after chargesheet filing.

The applicant sought bail in connection with FIR No. 0247 of 2026, registered at P.S. Patel Nagar, Dehradun, for alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

She had been in custody since 1 June 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

She submitted that she was a married woman, a mother of two, had no criminal antecedents, and was entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 480(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The State and complainant’s counsel did not dispute her status or the filing of the charge-sheet, but opposed bail on the ground that she might tamper with evidence in connivance with Panni Lal, whom the prosecution described as the main conspirator and an absconder.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail under the first proviso to Section 480(1) of the BNSS, having regard to her status as a woman and the circumstances of the case.

Whether the State’s concern about possible contact with the absconding co-accused and tampering with evidence justified refusing bail.

The Court relied on the first proviso to Section 480(1) of the BNSS, which permits a court to grant bail to a person who is under sixteen years of age, is a woman, or is sick or infirm, subject to the statutory framework governing bail in non-bailable cases.

The judgment refers to this provision as Section 480(1) of the BNSS in paragraph 5, although paragraph 8 describes it as a provision of the BNS. No precedent is cited.

The Court considered that the applicant was a woman and a mother, had no criminal antecedents as submitted by her counsel, had been in custody since 1 June 2026, and that the charge-sheet had been filed.

It also noted that the offences were triable by a Magistrate.

Although the State raised a risk of contact with Panni Lal and possible evidence tampering, the Court granted bail subject to conditions specifically prohibiting contact with him and tampering with evidence, and allowing the prosecution to seek cancellation if the applicant engaged in further unlawful activity.

It directed the applicant’s release on a personal bond and two reliable sureties, subject to conditions including attendance at every trial hearing, surrender of any passport within three days of release, and no contact with Panni Lal or tampering with evidence.

The Court further stated that the order was not to be treated as a precedent for the co-accused, particularly Panni Lal.