Exclusion of Accused-Attributable Delay in Computing Statutory Bail Under Section 479 BNSS

The appellant, a journalist, was arrested on 20.10.2023 following an FIR alleging he circulated a provocative video on social media containing hate speech against a particular community and scandalous, sexually coloured remarks about the informant’s family

Charges were framed under various sections of the IPC, the IT Act, and the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

After the examination of 37 witnesses, the trial reached the stage of final arguments

The appellant sought bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and the right to effectively consult counsel

The Special Judge rejected the bail application on 06.03.2026, leading to this appeal

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to statutory bail under Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) having allegedly completed one-third of the maximum imprisonment period

2. Whether the appellant’s criminal antecedents and conduct during the trial warrant the continued rejection of bail

Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which mandates the release of undertrials who have undergone detention for one-half (or one-third for first-time offenders) of the maximum imprisonment, provided that any delay caused by the accused is excluded from this computation

Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 regarding the maintainability of appeals against bail orders

Judicial principles regarding criminal antecedents and the likelihood of repeating offences as grounds for denying bail

The court found the appellant’s claim for statutory bail under Section 479 BNSS untenable because a substantial trial delay of 528 days was directly attributable to the appellant's repeated adjournment requests

Once this period was excluded as per the Explanation to Section 479, the effective custody period fell short of the one-third threshold

Furthermore, the court emphasized the appellant's extensive criminal history—approximately 14 cases involving similar allegations of defamation, extortion, and atrocities against SC/ST members—indicating a habitual pattern of conduct

The court reasoned that since the trial was at the stage of final arguments (imminent conclusion), and given the gravity of the charges and risk of recidivism, the appellant did not merit release

The Court upheld the order of the Special Judge dated 06.03.2026, finding no illegality or infirmity in the refusal of bail given the appellant’s antecedents and the advanced stage of the trial. The appeal was dismissed, and all pending stay orders were vacated