Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that Section 437 (6) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [Section 480 (6) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)] cannot be considered to be mandatory in nature and cannot be interpreted to grant an absolute and indefeasible right of bail in favour of accused. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu v. The State of Chattisgarh (2025).

What was the Background of Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu v. The State of Chhattisgarh Case?

• The Appeal concerns an order passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur dated 22 July 2024, denying regular bail to the appellant.  
• The criminal case involves charges under Sections 420, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) related to cryptocurrency fraud. 
• The amount involved in the fraud is approximately Rs. 4 Crore, affecting almost 2000 investors. 
• The charge sheet has been filed against 5 individuals including the appellant. 
• The trial is ongoing in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, with only one witness examined so far. 
• The prosecution plans to examine 189 witnesses in total. 
• The Appellant has been in custody since December 2023. 
•  The maximum punishment that can be imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (if the offence is established) would be 7 years. 
• The Counsel in this case attracted the attention of the Court to Section 437 (6) of CrPC which is currently Section 480 (6) of BNSS. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court held in this case that the provisions of Section 437(6) (Section 480 (6)), as such, cannot be considered to be mandatory in nature and cannot be interpreted to grant an absolute and indefeasible right of bail in favour of the accused. 
• While considering an application under Section 480 (6) the following factors are relevant: 
  • (i) Whether the reasons for being unable to conclude trial within sixty days from the first date fixed of taking evidence, are attributable to the accused? 
  • (ii) Whether there are any chances of the accused tampering with evidence or causing prejudice to the case of the prosecution in any other manner? 
  • (iii) Whether there are any chances of abscondence of the accused on being bailed out? 
  • (iv) Whether accused was not in custody during the whole of the said period? 
• If the answer to any of the above is affirmative that would act as a fetter on the right of the accused under Section 480 (6) of BNSS. 
• It was also observed by the Court that the factors mentioned above are only illustrative and not exhaustive. 
• The Court held that the approach adopted by the Court while considering the application under Section 480 (6) of BNSS is liberal in nature and it should be a sound and judicious exercise of discretion in the favour of the accused. 
• Also, normal parameters that are deciding bail application would also be relevant while deciding application under Section 437(6) of the Code, but not with that rigour as they might have been at the time of application for regular bail. 
• The Court hence concluded that the appellant shall be released on bail subject to certain terms that may be imposed by the Trial Court.

What is Section 480 (6) of BNSS?

• This provision was embodied earlier in Section 437 (6) of CrPC. 
• Section 480 of BNSS provides when bail may be taken in case of non bailable offence. 
• Section 480 (6) of BNSS provides for the release of the accused if the following requirements are fulfilled: 
  • This provision applies to non-bailable offences being tried by a Magistrate. 
  • If the trial is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, the accused must be released on bail. 
  • This mandatory bail applies only if the accused has been in custody for the entire 60-day period. 
  • The Magistrate may deny bail despite this provision but must record specific reasons in writing for doing so. 
• It is to be noted that Section 480 (6) can be divided into two parts: 
  • While the first part indicates that it is mandatory to release the accused person on bail. 
  • The second part has given discretion to the Magistrate not to grant bail by assigning reasons. 
  • Thus, although the first part can momentarily be said to be mandatory, it cannot be interpreted to give an indefeasible right to the accused to be released on bail as it is controlled by the second part of the provision.   
• The intention behind introducing Section 480 (6) of BNSS is indeed to speed up trial without unnecessarily detaining the person as an undertrial prisoner for a prolonged time. 
• Difference Between Section 480 (1) (2) and Section 480 (6) of BNSS: 
  • The grounds relevant for the purpose of refusing bail under Section 480 (6) of BNSS would not be the same which could have weighed with the Magisterial Court while refusing bail under Section 480(1) & (2) of the BNSS. 
  • The stage talked about in Section 480 (1) and (2) is much prior to the trial. The stage contemplated under Section 480 (6) is after filing of charge-sheet and framing of charge when trial commences, and the accused prefers an application after lapse of 60 days from first date fixed for taking evidence. 
• If the grounds for both Section 480 (1) and (2) and Section 480 (6) are same that would render Section 480 (6) otiose. 
• Thus, reasons for rejection of bail under Section 480 (6) should be different and a little more weighty as compared to rejection of bail at the initial stage.