Previous conviction under Section 307 IPC does not operate as an absolute bar to bail under Section 480 BNSS.

The applicant sought bail for offenses under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 117(2), 352, and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, concerning an incident where he allegedly assaulted the victim with a 'Tangi' (axe-like weapon)

Medical reports indicated lacerated wounds and rib fractures, which were deemed "not dangerous to life"

The prosecution opposed bail, citing the applicant’s criminal history of 11 cases, including a prior conviction under Section 307 IPC with a five-year sentence, and argued he was a repeat offender

The applicant had been in custody since December 16, 2025

1. Whether the word "punishable" in Section 480(1)(i) and (ii) of the BNSS refers to the maximum statutory penalty or the actual sentence awarded for the purpose of Determining a bar on bail?

2. Whether a previous conviction and extensive criminal history serve as an absolute bar to the High Court’s jurisdiction to grant bail under Section 483 of the BNSS?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS (formerly Section 439 Cr.P.C.) regarding the High Court's special powers to grant bail and Section 480 BNSS (formerly Section 437 Cr.P.C.) regarding restrictions on bail for repeat offenders

Full Bench decision in Arimardan v. State of U.P., which interpreted "punishable" in the context of sentencing as being tied to the actual sentence awarded rather than the statutory maximum

Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P., establishing that the mere existence of criminal history is not a sole basis for refusing bail

Saquib Abdul Hamid Nachan v. State of Maharashtra, holding that the prohibition against granting bail to convicts is not absolute if "reasonable grounds" exist for such release

The Court reasoned that the statutory bar under Section 480(1)(ii) BNSS did not apply because the applicant’s prior conviction resulted in a five-year sentence, whereas the bar targets those previously convicted of offenses punishable by death, life imprisonment, or seven-plus years

Following the Arimardan precedent, the Court held that "punishable" must be interpreted based on the actual five-year sentence awarded, not the theoretical maximum of life under Section 307 IPC

Regarding criminal history, the Court noted that while antecedents must be considered, they cannot be the exclusive grounds for rejection if the current injuries (lacerations and non-life-threatening fractures) and the applicant's specific role (general role, inconsistencies between weapon type and wound nature) suggest bail is appropriate

The Court emphasized that the High Court’s discretion under Section 483 BNSS remains intact even where Section 480 may suggest a bar for lower courts

The Court allowed the bail application, ordering the release of the applicant on a personal bond and two sureties