The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that the right to default bail under Section 480(6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is automatic and triggered solely by the passage of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, irrespective of whether the delay is attributable to the prosecution or the court. This ruling clarifies a critical procedural safeguard for undertrial prisoners in non-bailable offences.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Ramashankar Shah, accused under Sections 309 and 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S. 2023) for robbery and threat, has been in judicial custody since the framing of charges on 19 August 2025. The prosecution’s case hinges on the testimony of seven witnesses, including the prosecutrix Krishnamati Kushwaha. Despite multiple adjournments, the trial remained incomplete beyond the statutory 60-day limit.
Procedural History
- 19 August 2025: Charges framed; first date for evidence fixed.
- 26 August 2025 to 10 January 2026: Seven adjournments due to non-appearance of prosecution witnesses; no speaking orders recorded on service of summons or reasons for delay.
- 28 October 2025: First application for default bail filed under Section 480(6) B.N.S.S. 2023; rejected.
- 10 January 2026: Second application filed; dismissed by trial court on grounds of "no change in circumstances" and prior rejection of bail.
- 23 February 2026: Criminal revision heard and decided by Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought release on default bail under Section 480(6) of B.N.S.S. 2023, arguing that the trial had not concluded within 60 days from the first date of evidence, and that he had remained in custody throughout.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 480(6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 entitles an accused to default bail merely upon the expiry of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, even if the delay in trial is caused by the prosecution’s failure to produce witnesses or by court adjournments.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the language of Section 480(6) is mandatory and unambiguous: "such person shall... be released on bail" if the trial is not concluded within 60 days. He emphasized that the provision is a statutory right, not a discretionary privilege, and that the trial court erred by conflating it with regular bail applications. He cited the High Court’s earlier order permitting the filing of this application as a clear indication that the issue was to be adjudicated on its merits.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the application was improperly framed and lacked specific pleading under Section 480(6). It further argued that the delay was due to the unavailability of witnesses and that the trial court had rightly considered the prior rejection of bail, asserting that no material change in circumstances warranted a fresh grant.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a textual and purposive interpretation of Section 480(6), rejecting the trial court’s reliance on the doctrine of "change in circumstances" as inapplicable to statutory default bail. The provision, the Court held, operates independently of judicial discretion once the 60-day threshold is crossed.
"The language of Section 480(6) is mandatory and leaves no room for judicial discretion once the conditions are satisfied. The word 'shall' is not permissive; it is imperative."
The Court noted that the trial court had failed to record any written reasons for denying bail under the proviso to Section 480(6), which requires specific, justifiable grounds for deviation from the mandatory release. The absence of speaking orders on witness summonses, combined with repeated adjournments without explanation, demonstrated systemic failure on the part of the prosecution and the court.
The Court further clarified that the petitioner’s initial application, though poorly drafted, clearly invoked Section 480(6) and was supported by the High Court’s prior direction to consider the matter on merit. The trial court’s refusal to recognize this constituted a misreading of both the law and the procedural history.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that Section 480(6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 creates an automatic right to default bail upon the expiry of 60 days from the first date of evidence, provided the accused remains in custody. The trial court’s order was set aside, and the petitioner was granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 and one surety of like amount.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Default Bail Is Not Discretionary
- Practitioners must file applications under Section 480(6) immediately upon expiry of 60 days, regardless of prior bail rejections.
- Courts cannot deny default bail on grounds of "no change in circumstances" - this doctrine applies only to regular bail, not statutory default bail.
- The burden is on the prosecution to prove why the trial could not conclude within 60 days; silence or non-attendance of witnesses does not excuse delay.
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Trial courts must maintain detailed order sheets recording every step in witness service, including whether summons were returned served, unserved, or untraceable.
- Failure to record reasons for adjournments or non-appearance of witnesses renders the trial vulnerable to default bail claims.
- Any denial of default bail under Section 480(6) must be accompanied by written reasons justifying deviation from the mandatory provision.
Statutory Rights Trump Procedural Technicalities
- Even if an application is poorly drafted, courts must examine the substance of the claim if the statutory provision is invoked.
- A prior dismissal of a bail application does not bar a subsequent default bail plea under Section 480(6), especially when the High Court has expressly permitted such a filing.
- Legal aid lawyers and public defenders must treat Section 480(6) as a routine, non-negotiable tool for securing liberty in prolonged trials.
