Prolonged pre-trial incarceration and delayed Magistrate trial warrant bail under Section 480(6) BNSS.

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in Tamando P.S. Case No. 299 of 2024, corresponding to C.T. Case No. 709 of 2024, pending before the learned JMFC-I, Bhubaneswar.

She faced prosecution under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly obtaining a loan of ₹1,18,00,000 from Aditya Birla Capital Ltd. by using fictitious and forged documents.

The petitioner had been in custody since 9 August 2024.

Although charges were framed on 19 July 2025 and 2 August 2025 was fixed as the date for trial, only two witnesses had been examined by the time of consideration of the bail application.

The prosecution and the informant opposed bail, principally on the ground that the petitioner had six criminal antecedents; however, the petitioner had disclosed those antecedents.

Her earlier application under Section 480(6) of the BNSS had also been rejected.

1. Whether the petitioner should be released on bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, considering her prolonged incarceration, the slow progress of the Magistrate-triable trial, and the fact that she is a woman?

2. Whether Section 480(6) of the BNSS, which contemplates release on bail where a Magistrate-triable trial is not concluded within sixty days from the first date fixed for recording evidence, supports the petitioner’s claim for bail?

3. Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and the seriousness of the alleged financial fraud warranted denial of bail despite the prolonged custody?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant bail; Section 480(6) of the BNSS, under which an accused in a Magistrate-triable case acquires a stronger entitlement to bail where the trial is not concluded within sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, though the provision does not confer an absolute right; and the proviso to Section 480 of the BNSS, which permits favourable consideration of bail where the accused is a woman.

The Court also relied on Article 21 of the Constitution, holding that indefinite incarceration caused by an unduly delayed trial is inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.

It further recognised that bail is a temporary release subject to conditions and does not amount to acquittal or a determination on the merits of the prosecution.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegation involving an alleged fraud of ₹1,18,00,000 and the petitioner’s six criminal antecedents, but noted that the antecedents had been disclosed and that the petitioner had already undergone nearly two years of custody.

The case was pending before a Magistrate competent to impose imprisonment of up to three years, while the trial had progressed only to the examination of two witnesses despite the framing of charge and the expiry of the period contemplated under Section 480(6) of the BNSS.

The Court treated Section 480(6) as conferring a heightened, though not absolute, right to bail and considered the prolonged detention, slow pace of trial, Article 21, and the petitioner’s status as a woman under the proviso to Section 480.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, it concluded that continued detention was not justified.

The conditions imposed were that the petitioner must cooperate with the further trial and must not leave India without prior permission of the trial court; she was also required to surrender her passport, or file an affidavit confirming that she did not possess one.

The BLAPL was accordingly disposed of, with directions for communication of the order to the concerned court and jail authorities.