Default Bail Under BNSS Cannot Be Denied On Technicalities: Madhya Pradesh High Court

In a significant ruling reinforcing the statutory right to default bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has set aside a Magistrate’s order rejecting an application under Section 480(6) BNSS (corresponding to Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C) and directed the release of the accused on bail after finding that the trial had not concluded within the mandated 60-day period.

The decision was rendered by Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh in Criminal Revision No. 200 of 2026, Ramashankar Shah v. The State of Madhya Pradesh.

The revision petition challenged the order dated January 10, 2026 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Singrauli, in R.C.T. No. 318 of 2025, whereby the applicant’s plea for default bail had been dismissed. Appearing for the applicant, Shri Pradeep Naveriya argued that the statutory mandate under Section 480(6) of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C) had been triggered, as the trial in a non-bailable offence triable by a magistrate was not concluded within sixty days from the first date fixed for evidence. Ms. Nitu Pariney, Panel Lawyer for the State, supported the impugned order.

The High court examined the trial court record in detail. Charges had been framed and the first date for recording evidence was fixed on August 26, 2025. The record revealed repeated adjournments, non-appearance of witnesses, issuance of summons and bailable warrants, partial examination of witnesses, and occasions where cross-examination was deferred due to paucity of time. On several dates, there was no clarity regarding service of summons. The Presiding Officer was also on leave on one date, further delaying proceedings. Eventually, an application under Section 480(6) BNSS (corresponding to Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C) was filed and rejected on January 10, 2026.

The magistrate had rejected the application primarily on the ground that earlier bail applications had been dismissed and there was no change in circumstances. The trial court also referred to the nature of allegations, observing that the accused had allegedly committed loot of ornaments and threatened the prosecutrix. However, the High court found this approach legally untenable in the context of a default bail plea.

Quoting Section 480(6) (corresponding to Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C), the court noted: “If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail… unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs.” The court emphasized that the statutory command is clear and operates independently of merits-based considerations ordinarily applicable to regular bail.

Justice Singh observed that confusion appeared to have arisen because the application, though filed under Section 480(6) (corresponding to Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C), contained pleadings referring to poverty and prolonged incarceration. The High court clarified that even if specific grounds were not artfully drafted, “correct interpretation of the application has to be applied,” particularly when the provision was explicitly invoked and had also been referred to in an earlier order of a Coordinate Bench granting liberty to approach the magistrate.

Holding that the trial had indeed not been completed within sixty days from the first date fixed for evidence after framing of charges, the court concluded that the magistrate’s order “cannot be allowed to be sustained.” The impugned order was set aside and the application for default bail was allowed. The court directed that upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 along with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, the applicant be released on bail.

Case Title: Ramashankar Shah v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: February 23, 2026

Bench: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh