When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence
Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with when bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence. When any person accused of, or suspected of, the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court or Court of Session, he may be released on bail, but--- (i) su The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) When any person accused of, or suspected of, the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court or Court of Session, he may be released on bail, but---
(i) such person shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life;
(ii) such person shall not be so released if such offence is a cognizable offence and he had been previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more, or he had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but less than seven years:
Provided that the Court may direct that a person referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) be released on bail if such person is a child or is a woman or is sick or infirm:
Provided further that the Court may also direct that a person referred to in clause (ii) be released on bail if it is satisfied that it is just and proper so to do for any other special reason:
Provided also that the mere fact that an accused person may be required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days shall not be sufficient ground for refusing to grant bail if he is otherwise entitled to be released on bail and gives an undertaking that he shall comply with such directions as may be given by the Court:
Provided also that no person shall, if the offence alleged to have been committed by him is punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or more, be released on bail by the Court under this sub-section without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor.
(2) If it appears to such officer or Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence, but that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall, subject to the provisions of section 492 and pending such inquiry, be released on bail, or, at the discretion of such officer or Court, on the execution by him of a bond for his appearance as hereinafter provided.
(3) When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter VII or Chapter XVII of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub-section (1), the Court shall impose the conditions,---
(a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter;
(b) that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected; and
(c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence,
and may also impose, in the interests of justice, such other conditions as it considers necessary.
(4) An officer or a Court releasing any person on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), shall record in writing his or its reasons or special reasons for so doing.
(5) Any Court which has released a person on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to custody.
(6) If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs.
(7) If, at any time, after the conclusion of the trial of a person accused of a non-bailable offence and before judgment is delivered, the Court is of opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of any such offence, it shall release the accused, if he is in custody, on the execution by him of a bond for his appearance to hear judgment delivered.
Section 480, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 437 When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 437, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-15.pdf 2011-11-23 (not same-date order-16 ROP). Crl A 2011 (2G spectrum). CrPC 437 regular bail: bail is the rule and jail the exception even in serious economic offences; the court looks at flight risk, tampering and the likely delay of trial, not the gravity of the charge alone. Map crpc 437 and successor bnss 480.
On this section: Successor of CrPC 437 (mapping.csv near-identical). Regular-bail teaching carries to BNSS 480.
-
Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 437, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception in criminal procedure. The presumption of innocence, being a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, places the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt. Courts must exercise their discretion in granting or refusing bail judiciously, considering all relevant factors including the nature and gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the conduct of the accused during investigation, the delay in trial, and the likelihood of the accused absconding. Investigating agencies must comply with Section 41 and 41A of the CrPC by recording reasons for arrest and for not arresting. Non-compliance with these provisions entitles the accused to bail. Courts must act as guardians of liberty and ensure that personal liberty is protected in accordance with the procedure established by law.
On this section: When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence; conditions for bail
-
Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs Union of India Ministry of Finance through Secretary Revenue
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 437, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, insofar as it imposes two further conditions for release on bail (that Public Prosecutor be given opportunity to oppose and that Court be satisfied of reasonable grounds for believing accused not guilty and not likely to commit offence while on bail), is unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India because: (1) the classification based on sentencing of predicate offences has no rational nexus to the object of the PMLA Act which is to attach proceeds of crime and bring money laundering offenders to book; (2) the twin conditions relate to guilt of predicate offence, not money laundering offence, creating a disconnect; (3) the provision produces manifestly arbitrary results depending on whether predicate offence is in Part A or Part B of Schedule or whether person is charged with money laundering alone; (4) the provision inverts the presumption of innocence which is fundamental to criminal law; (5) the procedure is not fair, just and reasonable as required by Article 21; and (6) the provision lacks a compelling state interest justifying such drastic inroads into personal liberty.
On this section: Provides normal bail conditions for non-bailable offences; contrasted with stringent conditions in Section 45 PMLA
-
Shyam Narain Pandey vs State of U. P
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 437, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an appellate court is inclined to release on bail a convicted person sentenced to death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for ten years or more, it is mandatory for the appellate court to first give an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to file written objections against such release. Service of appeal and bail application papers does not satisfy this requirement. The appellate court must affirmatively grant a specific opportunity for written show cause, wait for the Public Prosecutor's written response (if any), and then proceed to consider the bail application. The procedure is mandatory, not discretionary, and non-compliance renders the bail order procedurally defective and liable to be set aside.
On this section: Referenced in Section 439 context regarding conditions for bail and offence categories
-
Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu vs The State of Chhattisgarh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 437, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 437(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 does not grant an absolute or indefeasible right to bail to an accused whose trial is not concluded within 60 days from the first date of taking evidence. The Magistrate has discretion to refuse bail by recording reasons. However, applications under Section 437(6) must be given a liberal approach where: (1) the delay is not attributable to the accused; (2) there is no risk of evidence tampering; (3) there is no risk of abscondence; (4) the accused has been in custody throughout the period; and (5) the period of custody is substantial compared to the prescribed punishment. The grounds for refusing bail under Section 437(6) must be more weighty than routine grounds for refusing regular bail. The provision aims to protect the constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21 while balancing prosecution interests.
On this section: Regular bail provisions for non-bailable offences at the initial stage of proceedings.
-
Pankaj Jain vs Union Of India
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 437, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The word 'may' in Section 88 Cr.P.C. confers discretionary power on the court and does not create a mandatory obligation or a corresponding right in any person appearing before the court. The discretion is for the court to exercise judicially based on the nature of the case, seriousness of charges, and status of the person (whether a free agent or already under warrant/arrest). Section 88 applies only to persons who are free agents - meaning they have not been arrested, are not under custody, and a non-bailable warrant has not been issued against them. When a non-bailable warrant has been issued and proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against an accused, that person ceases to be a free agent and cannot claim protection under Section 88. The discretion under Section 88 is not coupled with any duty toward the appearing person; rather, it is coupled with the duty to ensure appearance of the person in court. Therefore, an accused person's non-arrest during investigation does not automatically entitle them to release on bond merely by appearing in court; they must follow the prescribed bail procedures applicable to their specific category of offence.
On this section: Specific provision for bail in non-bailable offences - court held that Section 88 is not independent and is subject to Section 437 Cr.P.C. in cases of non-bailable offences
-
Vaman Narain Ghiya vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 437, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires that an accused person must be in actual custody to file a bail application before the High Court or Court of Session. The protective umbrella provided by anticipatory bail under Section 438 is of limited duration, intended only to allow the accused to move the regular court for bail. Once that limited period expires, the accused cannot bypass the statutory requirement of Section 439 by seeking to extend Section 438 protection. The distinction between Sections 438 and 439 must be maintained, and no part of the statute can be rendered redundant or dead letter by circumventing the express requirement of custody under Section 439.
On this section: Governs bail in non-bailable cases; requires Court to consider factors like offence nature and evidence strength
-
Narendra K Amin vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 437, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a trial court while granting bail acts on irrelevant materials or takes into account irrelevant materials of substantial nature, the High Court or superior court can cancel such bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 without requiring supervening circumstances, as the order granting bail becomes vulnerable on account of the perversity arising from consideration of irrelevant materials. The parameters for granting bail and canceling bail are different. While re-appreciation of evidence should be avoided, consideration of irrelevant materials renders the bail order liable for cancellation.
On this section: Conditions are sine qua non for granting bail even under Section 439
-
Sanjiv Chaubey @ Sanjiv vs The State of Bihar
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 437, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person has complied with interim conditions of bail including financial deposit and cooperation with investigation, demonstrating good faith and absence of flight risk, and when changed circumstances warrant reconsideration, the appellate court may grant regular bail with such conditions as are necessary to protect the interests of all parties, including utilizing the deposited amount to secure matrimonial obligations such as maintenance arrears.
On this section: Powers to grant bail in criminal cases; conditions of bail; bonds and sureties
-
Bhera Ram Choudhary vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged with bailable offences, the accused possesses a statutory right to bail under Section 478 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 436 of the Criminal Procedure Code). The judicial officer has no discretion in such cases and must grant bail upon the accused offering surety or bail. The arrest of an accused in bailable offences must be justified by compelling reasons beyond mere suspicion, in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. When the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are absent from the FIR, and the arrest is unlawful and made with malice, the High Court possesses the inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings. Furthermore, when a person is unlawfully arrested and detained with malicious intent, causing violation of fundamental rights and irreparable injury to dignity, career, and mental well-being, the person is entitled to monetary compensation as a measure of restorative justice, and such compensation should be paid personally by the individuals responsible for the wrongful action rather than by the State.
On this section: The Court discussed the discretionary nature of bail in non-bailable offences under Section 480 BNSS (corresponding to Section 437 CrPC). The Court held that even in non-bailable offences, judicial discretion must be exercised judiciously and with utmost care, considering factors such as gravity of offence, likelihood of absconding, and risk of tampering with evidence.
-
Dhara Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 437, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When members of an unlawful assembly armed with lethal weapons gather to take forcible possession of disputed land, they form a common object to dispossess the occupants. While the common object is limited to taking possession, the members of the assembly know that grievous injuries are likely to be caused in prosecution of this object. Therefore, all members are vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC for offences under Sections 326/149, 325/149, 324/149, 323/149, 452, 447, and 148 IPC. However, if one or more members exceed the common object by causing fatal injuries resulting in death, only those members who directly caused the fatal injuries are liable for murder under Section 302 IPC, not all members of the assembly. The delay in sending the FIR to the magistrate, combined with lack of specific role attribution to female members, justifies their acquittal on grounds of abundant caution. The protracted trial duration constitutes a mitigating circumstance in sentencing.
On this section: Bail conditions for acquitted accused; applied to Smt. Narbada and Smt. Kamli requiring personal and surety bonds
-
Anu Mathew vs State of Kerala
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 437, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The mere fact that an accused person is residing in a foreign country at the time of filing an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC does not bar the court from entertaining such application or deprive the court of jurisdiction. However, the court must exercise its discretionary power judicially by assessing whether the accused has made out a bonafide apprehension of arrest, whether the accused absconded with knowledge of the crime or went abroad bonafidely for employment, and whether the accused is willing to cooperate with investigation and trial. The court must impose appropriate conditions under Section 438(2) to regulate the grant of bail and prevent abuse, including conditions that the accused should make himself available for interrogation, should not leave India without court permission, and should come to India within a specified reasonable time limit to cooperate with investigation. The court cannot pass blanket orders restraining arrest but can pass interim bail orders conforming to Section 438 requirements, and can later dispose of the main application by granting final bail with strict conditions. If the accused fails to comply with the conditions, the court has the power to vacate the bail order.
On this section: Provisions on regular bail that can be applied to anticipatory bail through Section 438(2)(iv)
-
Mohd. Inam vs State of Uttarakhand
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 437, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The provisions of Section 437(6) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 are mandatory in nature. When the trial of a person accused of a non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, and such person is in custody during the whole period, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs. An order rejecting an application under Section 437(6) CrPC is not an interlocutory order but a substantive order affecting the rights of the accused, and therefore, a C482 application is maintainable against such an order. The High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to examine whether the order passed by the Magistrate is as per the mandate of Section 437(6) CrPC, particularly when the Magistrate has not recorded reasons for rejection as mandated by the statute.
On this section: Provides that if in any case triable by Magistrate the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, then such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs. The Court held this provision is mandatory in nature.
-
State of Haryana vs Shakir @ Shahrukh, S/o- Jamil
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 437, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the prosecution case rests solely on the statements of official police witnesses without any independent corroborating witnesses, the evidence must be subjected to close scrutiny. The prosecution must establish both the actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) of the accused, along with the causal connection between the alleged criminal acts and the accused person. Mere recovery of contraband articles does not establish the accused's involvement unless the prosecution proves the accused's direct participation in the offence. Procedural compliance, particularly the mandatory requirement to associate independent witnesses during recovery under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., is essential for the credibility of the prosecution case. In the absence of such compliance and independent corroboration, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.
On this section: Bonds furnished for bail purposes; discharged upon acquittal
-
State of Maharashtra vs Sushant Suresh Kotkar
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 437, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When prosecution witnesses, particularly the complainant and the victim themselves, turn hostile and do not support the prosecution case in their testimony, and no other credible evidence is brought on record to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere allegations without supporting evidence from credible witnesses are insufficient for conviction.
On this section: Bail bond conditions - Applied for the bail bond conditions imposed on the accused after acquittal
-
Vijaybhai Kantibhai Gameti vs The State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal bail applications, the court must balance the accused's constitutional right to liberty (Article 21) with the state's interest in ensuring trial completion. Bail is not a punishment but a mechanism to secure the accused's presence during trial. When the offences charged do not fall within the most serious categories under Section 437 CrPC, and when appropriate bail conditions can adequately protect the state's interests, bail should be granted. The gravity of the offence and the prescribed punishment are relevant considerations, but indefinite detention without trial is unconstitutional.
On this section: Provisions governing bail in criminal cases; the court applied this section to determine the conditions under which bail could be granted to the accused
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 480
What have the courts held on Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation (23 Nov 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 437, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of CrPC 437 (mapping.csv near-identical). Regular-bail teaching carries to BNSS 480. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 9 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNSS 480, section 480 BNSS, section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 480 and 483 and bnss 480(3). Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation (23 Nov 2011).
What should I read with Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 492 (Cancellation of bond and bail bond), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward CrPC 437 (When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, commonly called bail or regular bail, and cited as BNSS 480, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 401. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition810 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.