Grant of bail under Section 480(6) BNSS is discretionary and not a mandatory right upon delay.

The petitioner was accused of operating a sophisticated online gambling syndicate involving forged SIM cards and mule bank accounts under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 472 of the IPC, the Chhattisgarh Gambling Prohibition Act, and the IT Act

Charges were framed on 03.09.2024; however, the trial was not concluded within 60 days due to the subsequent arrest of a co-accused, filing of a supplementary charge sheet, and the need for re-examination of witnesses

The petitioner sought "default bail" under Section 480(6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

His applications were rejected by both the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Revisional Court

1. Whether the provision for release on bail under Section 480(6) of the BNSS (equivalent to Section 437(6) of the CrPC) is mandatory if the trial is not concluded within sixty days from the first date fixed for evidence.

2. Whether the gravity of the offence and the nature of the allegations constitute sufficient "reasons in writing" to deny bail despite the trial exceeding the 60-day statutory limit.

The Court primarily applied Section 480(6) of the BNSS, 2023, which provides for the release of an accused in custody if a magisterial trial is not concluded within 60 days, unless the Magistrate directs otherwise for reasons recorded in writing

It relied on Atul Bagga v. State of Chhattisgarh (2009) and Atul Kumar Shrivastava v. State of CG (2020) to establish that this right is not absolute and may be curtailed based on the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the possibility of tampering with evidence

The Court further cited Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (AIR 2025 SC 1483) to clarify that the right under this section is distinct from the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21

The Court reasoned that while Section 480(6) of the BNSS aims to prevent unnecessary detention, the word "mandatory" applies to the requirement of passing an order, not the automatic grant of bail

It observed that the delay in the trial was not arbitrary but resulted from procedural necessities, including the arrest of co-accused Madhur Jain and subsequent supplementary proceedings

Applying the factors from Atul Bagga, the Court noted the seriousness of the economic offence—specifically the use of Master IDs and online batting platforms—and determined that releasing a member of an organized gambling syndicate would have a negative "overall impact on the society"

The Court found that the Magistrate had exercised valid discretion by recording specific reasons related to the magnitude of the crime

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed, affirming the orders of the lower courts [para. 13]. However, the Court directed the Magistrate to ensure the prompt issuance of summons to conclude the trial expeditiously