Section 480(3) BNSS Bail Conditions Not Applicable to Offences Punishable Up to Seven Years: Supreme Court

In Narayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, decided on April 27, 2026, the Supreme Court clarified that the mandatory bail conditions prescribed under Section 480(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, do not apply to non-bailable offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years. The ruling by Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar addresses a widespread misinterpretation by trial courts that had been routinely imposing onerous conditions on accused persons charged with relatively less serious offences.

What Section 480(3) BNSS Provides

Section 480 of the BNSS governs the grant of bail in non-bailable offences. Sub-section (3) lays down additional mandatory conditions that courts must impose when granting bail for serious offences. These conditions include restrictions on the accused's movement, mandatory attendance at a police station, surrender of travel documents, and prohibitions against attempting to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. The provision was introduced to create a structured bail framework under the new criminal procedure code that replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, from July 1, 2024.

The Factual Background of the Case

The appellant Narayan was charged under the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915, for allegedly possessing illicit liquor. The offence carries a maximum punishment of three years' imprisonment and is classified as non-bailable. Despite the relatively minor nature of the charge, the trial court imposed all the stringent conditions enumerated under Section 480(3) while granting bail. The appellant challenged these conditions, arguing that the provision was never intended to apply uniformly to all non-bailable offences regardless of their severity.

The Supreme Court's Interpretation

The Supreme Court held that a proper reading of Section 480(3) reveals that the mandatory conditions are triggered only for offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding seven years. For offences punishable with up to seven years, courts retain discretion to impose appropriate conditions based on the facts and circumstances of each case, but are not bound by the mandatory framework of sub-section (3). The Court noted that interpreting the provision otherwise would lead to absurd consequences, including imposing travel document surrender requirements on petty offenders charged with minor infractions that happen to be classified as non-bailable.

Proportionality Principle and Practical Impact

The judgment reinforces the proportionality principle in bail jurisprudence: liberty is the rule and its curtailment is the exception that must be justified on a case-by-case basis. For practitioners, this ruling provides a clear basis to resist disproportionate bail conditions in cases involving offences of moderate severity. Trial courts across India must now ensure that Section 480(3) conditions are applied only where the offence in question carries a maximum punishment exceeding seven years. Defence counsel can cite this judgment to seek modification of existing bail orders that impose Section 480(3) conditions for less serious offences.