Section 480(6) BNSS | If Trial Is Not Concluded Within Sixty Days… Such Person Shall Be Released On Bail: MP High Court

“Statutory Right Cannot Be Defeated By Drafting Defects”, In a significant ruling reinforcing the mandatory nature of statutory default bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, on 23 February 2026, allowed a criminal revision and granted default bail to an accused whose trial was not concluded within sixty days from the first date fixed for evidence.

Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Singrauli, which had rejected the applicant’s plea under Section 480(6) BNSS on the erroneous ground that it was a successive regular bail application without change in circumstances.

The Court held that Section 480(6) confers a statutory right, and once the conditions are fulfilled, the accused “shall… be released on bail,” unless legally sustainable reasons are recorded otherwise.

Charges Under Old IPC Provisions, Trial Before Magistrate

The applicant was facing trial for offences corresponding to old Sections 392 and 506 IPC, now reflected under Sections 309(4) and 351(3) of the BNSS framework. Charges were framed on 19 August 2025, and the accused remained in custody, appearing through video conferencing from District Jail.

The first date fixed for recording prosecution evidence was 26 August 2025. However, the trial did not conclude within sixty days from this date.

The record revealed repeated adjournments for securing prosecution witnesses. On several dates, there was no clear recording regarding service of summons. Witnesses were either absent, summoned again, bound over, or examined partially with cross-examination deferred due to lack of time. On one date, the Presiding Officer was on leave, resulting in further delay.

Despite the lapse of the statutory sixty-day period, the trial remained incomplete.

Application Under Section 480(6) BNSS Rejected By Magistrate

The applicant filed an application under Section 480(6) BNSS seeking default bail. The trial court rejected the application on 10 January 2026, treating it as a successive bail plea and observing that earlier bail applications had been rejected and that there was no change in circumstances.

The Magistrate also referred to an earlier proceeding (M.Cr.C. No. 57947 of 2025), where the applicant had withdrawn a petition before the High Court.

However, the High Court noted that while dismissing the earlier petition as withdrawn, liberty had been granted to the applicant to move an application under Section 480(6) BNSS before the Magistrate, to be considered on merits.

Misconstruction Of Statutory Right

Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh closely examined Section 480(6) BNSS, which provides:

“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… unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs.”

The Court observed that although the application was “not happily worded,” and certain pleadings referred to poverty and period of incarceration, the provision under Section 480(6) had been expressly invoked. The defect in drafting could not dilute the statutory mandate.

The Court held that the Magistrate “has not understood the real purpose of the order of the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench” and misconstrued the nature of the application by treating it as a regular bail plea.

Emphasising settled principles of interpretation, the Court held that the correct provision invoked must be considered notwithstanding defective pleadings. Once Section 480(6) was cited and the statutory conditions were satisfied, the Magistrate was bound to examine the matter within that framework.

Mandatory Nature Of Section 480(6): Sixty-Day Rule Enforced

The High Court found that the trial had not been completed within sixty days from 26 August 2025, the first date fixed for evidence, and that the applicant had remained in custody throughout.

No legally sustainable reasons had been recorded by the Magistrate to deny the benefit of the statutory provision.

The Court thus concluded that the applicant was entitled to default bail under Section 480(6) BNSS.

Bail Granted, Impugned Order Set Aside

Allowing the revision, the High Court set aside the order dated 10 January 2026 passed by the JMFC, Singrauli in R.C.T. No. 318 of 2025.

The Court directed that upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, the applicant shall be released on bail.

The revision was accordingly disposed of.

The judgment underscores that Section 480(6) BNSS is not a matter of judicial discretion in the ordinary sense but creates a statutory right in favour of an accused when a Magistrate-triable non-bailable case is not concluded within sixty days from the first date of evidence.

The ruling clarifies that such a right cannot be defeated by technical objections regarding drafting or by mischaracterising the application as a successive regular bail plea. The High Court has thus reaffirmed that procedural safeguards embedded in the BNSS must be meaningfully enforced to prevent prolonged incarceration due to systemic delays.

Date of Decision: 23 February 2026