Section 483 BNSS | Compromise in Non-Compoundable Offences Justifies Regular Bail Under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently granted regular bail to a petitioner accused of forgery and cheating under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, where the matter had been compromised between the parties. The judgment underscores the court’s discretion to release an accused on bail when investigation is complete, the trial is unlikely to conclude soon, and prolonged detention would violate constitutional rights under Article 21.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Kanika Manocha alias Mahi Sharma, was accused of cheating and forgery in connection with a fraudulent visa consultancy scheme. The complainant had approached the petitioner and others to secure an Australian visa for her son, paying Rs. 4,00,000 in cash and Rs. 19,500 as Embassy fees. Upon verification, the complainant discovered that the visa was forged, leading to the registration of FIR No. 118 dated 15.07.2025 under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (erstwhile Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 506 of the IPC) and Section 24 of the Immigration Act at Police Station Moti Nagar, Ludhiana.

Key Facts

• The complainant paid Rs. 4,00,000 in cash and Rs. 19,500 as Embassy fees for the visa
• The visa provided was later found to be forged and fabricated
• The complainant demanded a refund, but the petitioner and others allegedly threatened her
• FIR No. 118 dated 15.07.2025 was registered against the petitioner and others
• The petitioner has been in custody since 03.09.2025
• A compromise deed dated 27.05.2026 was executed between the parties (Annexure P-2)
• The complainant supported the petitioner’s bail plea and sought quashing of the FIR

Procedural History

• 15.07.2025: FIR registered under BNS and Immigration Act
• 03.09.2025: Petitioner arrested and remanded to custody
• 27.05.2026: Compromise deed executed between the parties
• 26.06.2026: Present bail petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS before the High Court

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioner

• The petitioner is a woman with a minor child (3 years old) and has been in custody since 03.09.2025
• She is not the owner or proprietor of the consultancy firm involved in the visa arrangement
• The matter has been amicably settled with the complainant, who supports her bail plea
• Prolonged detention without trial would violate her rights under Article 21 of the Constitution

For the Complainant

• The complainant, represented by Mr. Vikas Prakash, Advocate, filed a vakalatnama and stated no objection to granting bail
• The complainant acknowledged the compromise and sought quashing of the FIR

For the State

• The State, represented by Ms. Pratibha Bali, AAG, did not oppose the bail plea in light of the compromise

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS, arguing that:

• She is a woman with a minor child and has been in custody for nearly nine months
• The investigation is complete, and the final report under Section 193 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 173 of CrPC) has been filed
• The matter has been compromised, and the complainant supports her release
• Prolonged detention without trial would violate her constitutional rights under Article 21

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS could be granted to an accused in a non-bailable offence where:

• The investigation is complete,
• The matter has been compromised between the parties, and
• Prolonged detention without trial would violate Article 21 of the Constitution.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• The petitioner is a woman with a minor child and has been in custody since 03.09.2025 without trial
• The investigation is complete, and the final report under Section 193 of BNSS has been filed
• The matter has been compromised, and the complainant supports her release
• Prolonged detention would violate her rights under Article 21, as no useful purpose would be served by keeping her incarcerated

For the Complainant

• The complainant filed a vakalatnama and stated no objection to granting bail
• The complainant acknowledged the compromise and sought quashing of the FIR

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the following key principles:

1. Compromise in Criminal Cases: While compromise alone may not always justify bail, the Court noted that the complainant had no objection to the petitioner’s release. The compromise deed dated 27.05.2026 was a significant factor in the Court’s discretion.

2. Constitutional Rights Under Article 21: The Court emphasized that prolonged detention without trial would violate the petitioner’s right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The petitioner, a woman with a minor child, had already been in custody for nearly nine months, and the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.

3. Completion of Investigation: The Court observed that the investigation was complete, and the final report under Section 193 of BNSS had been filed. This reduced the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, further justifying bail.

4. Discretion Under Section 483 BNSS: The Court relied on its discretionary powers under Section 483 of BNSS to grant bail, particularly in cases where the accused’s continued detention would serve no useful purpose.

"Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of her rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

The Court clarified that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, ensuring that the trial court would proceed without prejudice.

The Verdict

The Court allowed the bail petition and ordered the release of the petitioner, Kanika Manocha alias Mahi Sharma, on regular bail during trial. The petitioner was directed to furnish bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The Court explicitly stated that its observations would not prejudice the trial proceedings.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Bail on Compromise in Non-Bailable Offences

• Courts may exercise discretion to grant bail under Section 483 of BNSS where a compromise has been reached, even in non-bailable offences
• The complainant’s consent and support for the accused’s release can be a decisive factor in bail considerations

Constitutional Rights Override Prolonged Detention

• Article 21 plays a critical role in bail jurisprudence, especially when the trial is unlikely to conclude soon
• Courts are inclined to release accused persons, particularly women with minor children, if continued detention serves no useful purpose

Investigation Completion as a Key Factor

• The completion of investigation and filing of the final report under Section 193 of BNSS reduces concerns about evidence tampering or witness influence
• This factor strengthens the case for bail, as the accused’s presence is no longer necessary for investigative purposes

Trial Court’s Independence Preserved

• Courts granting bail on compromise or humanitarian grounds often clarify that their observations do not prejudice the trial
• This ensures that the trial court retains full discretion to adjudicate the case on merits without being influenced by the High Court’s interim observations