The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that bail pending appeal may be granted under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, where appellants have already served a substantial portion of their sentence and the final disposal of the appeal is likely to take considerable time. The Court emphasized that the duration of incarceration already endured must be weighed against the potential outcome of the appeal, particularly where no criminal antecedents exist and the prosecution case contains material contradictions.
The Verdict
The appellants won. The High Court suspended the remaining sentence and granted bail pending appeal under Section 430 BNSS, subject to deposit of fine and personal bond with solvent surety. The Court did not rule on the merits of conviction but recognized that the appellants had served over four years of a ten-year sentence, with the appeal likely to remain pending for an extended period. The direction to appear before the trial court on fixed dates ensures procedural compliance.
Background & Facts
Appellant No.1, Sonu @ Rahul Nayak, and Appellant No.2, Golu @ Naubat, were convicted by the trial court on 12 May 2023 under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code for dacoity. Both were sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000 each, with default stipulations. Appellant No.1 was additionally convicted on lesser charges with concurrent sentences.
As per the custody report dated 13 October 2025, the appellants had already served four years, four months, and two days. By the time of the bail application on 21 January 2026, they had served an additional three months and eight days, totaling four years, seven months, and ten days of incarceration. Their counsel submitted that the prosecution case suffered from material contradictions, omissions, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, casting doubt on the reliability of the evidence. Both appellants had no prior criminal record and offered to comply with any bail conditions.
Three prior applications for suspension of sentence and bail had been filed and withdrawn. The present application, I.A. No.391/2026, was the fourth under Section 430(1) BNSS (equivalent to Section 389(1) CrPC). The State opposed the bail plea, arguing that the gravity of dacoity warranted continued incarceration.
The Legal Issue
Can bail be granted under Section 430 BNSS pending appeal when the appellant has already served a significant portion of a long-term sentence, and the appeal’s final disposal is likely to be delayed, without prejudging the merits of the conviction?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the appellants argued that Section 430 BNSS empowers the appellate court to suspend the sentence pending appeal, particularly where the appellant has served a substantial part of the sentence and the appeal involves substantial questions of law or fact. They cited the appellants’ clean antecedents, the prolonged pendency of the appeal, and the inherent contradictions in prosecution evidence as grounds for bail. They emphasized that continued incarceration beyond four years for an offense that may ultimately be reduced or overturned would violate the principle of proportionality and the right to personal liberty under Article 21.
For the Respondent
The State’s counsel contended that dacoity under Section 395 IPC is a serious offense involving violence and threat to public order, and granting bail pending appeal would undermine public confidence in the justice system. They argued that suspension of sentence should be the exception, not the rule, and that the appellate court should not interfere with the trial court’s factual findings absent a clear error of law. No specific statutory bar was cited, but the gravity of the offense was stressed as a deterrent to bail.
The Court's Analysis
The Court declined to evaluate the merits of the conviction, explicitly stating that its decision was not based on an assessment of the prosecution’s case. Instead, it focused on the procedural and equitable dimensions of Section 430 BNSS. The Court noted that the provision permits suspension of sentence pending appeal not merely as a matter of right, but as a discretionary power to be exercised in the interest of justice.
"The appellants have already undergone more than four years of rigorous imprisonment, and the final disposal of this appeal is likely to take considerable time. To keep them incarcerated for the remainder of the sentence without a final determination would amount to undue hardship."
The Court recognized that the appellants had served nearly half of their sentence, and that the delay in appellate disposal was not attributable to them. The absence of criminal antecedents and the willingness to comply with bail conditions further supported the exercise of discretion. The Court distinguished this from cases where bail is sought to evade trial or where the offense is of such gravity that public interest demands continued detention. Here, the balance tipped in favor of liberty, given the time already served and the procedural posture.
The Court imposed two conditions: deposit of the fine (if not already paid) and a personal bond of Rs.50,000 each with a solvent surety of the same amount, to be approved by the trial court. The appellants were also directed to appear before the trial court on 4 May 2026 and on subsequent dates as fixed, ensuring their continued accountability.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment clarifies that courts may grant bail under Section 430 BNSS even in serious offenses like dacoity, provided the appellant has served a substantial portion of the sentence and the appeal is likely to remain pending for an extended period. The decision reinforces that proportionality and the right to liberty under Article 21 are relevant considerations, even in heinous crimes, when the sentence served approaches or exceeds the likely outcome of the appeal.
Practitioners should now routinely calculate the time served against the sentence imposed when filing bail applications under Section 430. Where the served time exceeds 40-50% of the sentence and the appeal involves substantial factual or legal challenges, this judgment provides strong precedent for seeking suspension. However, the Court’s explicit refusal to assess the merits means that the strength of the appeal’s grounds remains a factor in judicial discretion. Cases involving repeat offenders, public safety concerns, or where the conviction is based on overwhelming evidence may still be distinguished.
The conditions imposed - fine deposit and personal bond with surety - are standard but critical. Failure to comply may result in immediate revocation. This judgment does not alter the burden of proof on appeal but provides a procedural pathway to mitigate pre-appeal incarceration.
