Section 480(6) BNSS mandates bail if Magistrate trial remains unconcluded sixty days after the first evidence date.

The Petitioner, Angel Mishra, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in connection with Tamando PS Case No. 324 of 2024.

The Petitioner is accused of offences under Sections 420/467/468/34 of the IPC for allegedly cheating an informant of approximately Rs. 78 Lakhs through forged documents regarding the delivery of a flat.

The Petitioner has been in custody since March 10, 2024, totaling over two years and three months of incarceration.

The trial is pending before the JMFC-I, Bhubaneswar, a court empowered to inflict a maximum sentence of only three years.

During cross-examination, the informant admitted to filing a separate cheque bounce case against the Petitioner for the same amount.

The Petitioner’s application for bail under Section 480(6) of the BNSS was previously rejected by the trial court.

Section 480(6) of the BNSS, which mandates that if a trial for a non-bailable offence before a Magistrate is not concluded within sixty days of the first date fixed for evidence, the accused shall be released on bail unless the Magistrate records specific written reasons to the contrary.

Section 483 of the BNSS regarding the High Court’s power to grant bail and the fundamental principles of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which protects against indefinite incarceration without trial.

Criminal proceedings are not a substitute for the realization of disputed civil dues.

The Court observed that although the Petitioner has five criminal antecedents, he has already suffered incarceration for twenty-seven months, which is significant given that the Magistrate’s maximum sentencing power is thirty-six months.

The Court found that the trial court failed to provide any reasons for refusing bail under Section 480(6) of the BNSS, noting that while the right is not absolute, the provision is more mandatory than discretionary when no reasons for denial are recorded.

The Court reasoned that indefinite detention pending trial violates the constitutional right to liberty under Article 21.

The Court further highlighted that the informant’s parallel cheque bounce case indicated an attempt to use the criminal machinery for debt recovery.

Finding no evidence that the Petitioner was a flight risk, the Court concluded that the length of detention and the nature of the trial justified the grant of bail.

The Petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a property surety of Rs. 5,00,000 and two solvent sureties of Rs. 1,00,000 each.

The Court imposed conditions requiring the Petitioner to attend every trial date, failing which the trial court may proceed under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).