The Bombay High Court has affirmed a critical safeguard for first-time undertrials, holding that prolonged pre-trial detention without meaningful progress in trial cannot override the statutory right to release under the proviso to Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This ruling reinforces the principle that bail is not a privilege but a procedural right when statutory conditions are met.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Amol Krushna Dongrikar, is accused in Crime No. 0169 of 2023, registered at Vishnu Nagar Police Station, Thane City, for offences under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution alleges that since 2015, the applicant induced 14 victims, including senior citizens, to invest substantial sums in his business by promising high returns, and subsequently failed to repay the amounts. A First Information Report was lodged on 3rd July 2023, leading to his arrest on the same date.
Key Facts
- The applicant has been in judicial custody since 3rd July 2023, amounting to 2 years and 11 months as of the date of the bail order.
- The alleged investments total at least Rs. 25 lakhs from 14 victims.
- The applicant claims the funds were accepted as dealership deposits, not as deposits under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act).
- The applicant asserts that repayment difficulties arose due to the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, not from any initial fraudulent intent.
- The applicant has no prior criminal record and is a first-time offender.
Procedural History
- 03.07.2023: Arrest of the applicant following FIR registration.
- 04.12.2025: Charges framed by the Trial Court.
- 06.05.2026: Bail application heard before the Bombay High Court.
- As of the hearing date, no prosecution witness had been examined despite charges being framed over 17 months prior.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
The applicant’s counsel argued that the transaction was a legitimate dealership arrangement, not a deposit under the MPID Act, and therefore the special restrictions on bail under that Act do not apply. He further submitted that the applicant’s prolonged incarceration - nearly three years - combined with the fact that the maximum sentence for the offences is seven years, entitles him to release under the proviso to Section 479 of the BNSS, 2023. He emphasized the absence of any trial progress and the applicant’s clean record.
For the Respondent-State
The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the MPID Act applies to the case, as the transactions resemble financial deposits, and therefore bail should be denied under the stringent provisions of that statute. The State also argued that the gravity of the offence, involving 14 victims and substantial sums, and the need to ensure trial integrity, warranted continued custody.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought release on bail pending trial, citing his status as a first-time undertrial who has served more than one-third of the maximum possible sentence.
The Legal Issue
Whether a first-time undertrial, who has served more than one-third of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence and faces no trial progress, is entitled to release on personal bond under the proviso to Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite allegations under the MPID Act.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
The applicant’s counsel relied on the plain language of the proviso to Section 479 of the BNSS, 2023, which mandates release on personal bond for first-time undertrials who have served one-third of the maximum imprisonment. He argued that the MPID Act’s applicability is a matter for trial, not bail adjudication, and that the prosecution’s failure to examine a single witness since framing of charges demonstrates gross delay. He cited State of Maharashtra v. Suresh to support that delay in trial must be weighed in bail decisions.
For the Respondent-State
The State contended that the nature of the transactions - accepting money with promises of returns - falls squarely within the definition of "financial establishment" under the MPID Act, thereby invoking its non-bailable character. It argued that the scale of the alleged fraud, involving senior citizens, and the risk of witness tampering justified continued custody. The State also claimed that the applicant’s assertion of pandemic-related losses was speculative and not substantiated.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a two-pronged analysis: first, whether the MPID Act barred bail; second, whether the proviso to Section 479 of the BNSS, 2023 applied mandatorily.
On the first point, the Court noted that a prima facie review of the charge-sheet did not indicate that the amounts were accepted as dealership deposits. The prosecution’s invocation of the MPID Act was therefore not baseless, but the Court held that the applicability of the Act is a substantive issue for trial, not a ground to deny bail under a statutory mandate.
On the second point, the Court emphasized that the proviso to Section 479 of the BNSS, 2023 is mandatory: "first-time offenders... who are undertrials shall be released on personal bond by the Court after serving one-third of the maximum imprisonment." The applicant had served 2 years and 11 months, exceeding one-third of the 7-year maximum sentence. There was no dispute that he was a first-time offender.
The Court further observed that the trial had made no substantive progress since charges were framed on 4th December 2025. With no witness examined and no indication of imminent conclusion, the Court found no justification for continuing detention beyond the statutory threshold.
"This Court finds no other reason for denying the benefit of the said provision to the Applicant. Though, the learned APP seeks expeditious disposal of the trial, it is a matter of fact that the charge has been framed on 4th December 2025 and till date, not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution."
The Court rejected the State’s concern about witness tampering as speculative, noting that conditions could be imposed to mitigate such risks.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court allowed the bail application and directed his release on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions: no interference with prosecution evidence, no contact with witnesses, and mandatory attendance at all trial dates. The Court clarified that its observations were prima facie and did not prejudice the trial court’s merits-based determination.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Bail Under BNSS 479 Is Non-Discretionary
- Practitioners must raise Section 479 proviso as a mandatory right in all first-time undertrial bail applications once one-third of the maximum sentence is served.
- Courts cannot deny relief on grounds of offence gravity or public interest if statutory conditions are met.
- The burden shifts to the State to prove exceptional circumstances that override the statutory mandate.
Trial Delay Is a Critical Factor in Bail Decisions
- Prolonged inaction by the prosecution - such as failure to examine witnesses for over 17 months after framing - constitutes a compelling reason to grant bail.
- Courts must scrutinize trial progress, not merely allegations, when applying Section 479.
- Delay in trial cannot be used to justify continued detention beyond statutory limits.
MPID Act Does Not Automatically Bar Bail
- Alleged applicability of the MPID Act must be proven at trial; it cannot be used as a blanket bar to bail under BNSS 479.
- Applicants may argue that their transactions fall outside the MPID Act’s definition (e.g., dealership deposits) to weaken the State’s bail opposition.
- Courts must distinguish between substantive applicability and procedural bail rights.
