Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Under Section 480(3) BNSS If Subsequent Offence Carries Punishment Less Than 7 Years: Supreme Court

"Punishment for subsequent offence is less than five years, the conditions as stipulated in Section 480(3) BNSS are not imposable," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that bail cannot be cancelled on the sole ground of involvement in a subsequent offence if the punishment for that subsequent offence is less than seven years, as the restrictive conditions under Section 480(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, would not be imposable.

A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed that the statutory power to impose conditions on bail, and the subsequent breach thereof, is strictly tethered to the nature and gravity of the offence as defined under the code.

The appellant, Narayan, was granted bail in connection with an offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915. However, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh later cancelled this bail under Section 483(2) BNSS / 439(2) CrPC upon an application by the State. The State’s primary contention was that the appellant had repeatedly engaged in similar criminal activities under the Excise Act while out on bail.

The primary question before the court was whether the involvement of an accused in a subsequent offence justifies the cancellation of bail when the punishment for said subsequent offence does not meet the threshold specified in Section 480(3) BNSS. The court was also called upon to determine the scope of a court's power to impose conditions on bail under the new procedural law.

Scope Of Section 480(3) BNSS Defined

The Court began its analysis by examining the statutory framework of Section 480(3) BNSS, which governs the imposition of conditions when granting bail. The bench noted that this provision is applicable only when a person is accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment of seven years or more, or offences falling under specific chapters of the BNSS (Chapter VI, VII, or XVII).

The bench clarified that the legislature has intentionally restricted the types of cases where specific conduct-related conditions can be imposed upon an accused. These chapters generally relate to offences against the State, the Armed Forces, and property. The court emphasized that unless the offence falls within these categories or meets the seven-year punishment threshold, the specific conditions under this sub-section cannot be mechanically applied.

Conditions Under Section 480(3) Not Imposable For Minor Offences

Turning to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court observed that the appellant was involved in a subsequent offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act. Since the punishment for this subsequent offence was less than five years, it did not satisfy the "seven years or more" criteria established by Section 480(3) BNSS.

The Court held that if a condition cannot be legally imposed under the statute, its alleged breach cannot form the sole basis for the cancellation of bail. The bench noted that "cancellation of bail on account of involvement in the subsequent offence solely based on Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, is not justified" given the statutory limitations of the BNSS.

"Having considered the provisions as contained in Section 480(3) BNSS, it is clear that if a person accused... is released on bail, in that situation, the Court may be in a position to impose conditions as specified therein."

Limits On State's Power To Seek Cancellation

While the Court protected the liberty of the appellant, it also balanced the State's interest in maintaining law and order. The bench made it clear that while the current cancellation was unjustified, the accused does not have a license to engage in further criminal activities. The bench explicitly cautioned the appellant against future misconduct.

The Court further clarified that if the appellant is found involved in activities that actually fall within the ambit of Section 480(3) BNSS in the future, the State would remain at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for cancellation. This ensures that the protection granted by the Court is contingent upon the continued lawful conduct of the accused.

Final Directions Of The Court

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had cancelled the appellant's bail. The Court allowed the appeal and restored the bail granted to the appellant in connection with Crime No. 388 of 2024 at Police Station Kannod.

The bench concluded by emphasizing that the accused shall not indulge in any other activity of a criminal nature. The Court reiterated that the "State is at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail" should the accused be found involved in offences meeting the statutory criteria under the BNSS or other relevant provisions of law.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ruling that bail cannot be cancelled for a subsequent offence unless that offence meets the specific gravity thresholds—such as a seven-year sentence—required to impose conditions under Section 480(3) BNSS. The judgment reinforces the principle that bail cancellation is a serious matter that must strictly adhere to statutory requirements.

Date of Decision: 22 April 2026