S.482 BNSS Widened Court's Discretion On Anticipatory Bail By Deleting Guiding Factors Like Nature Of Offence, Antecedents: Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently pointed that Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has widened the discretion conferred upon a criminal court wile deciding the anticipatory bail plea of a person apprehending arrest.

Justice Goutam Bhaduri highlighted that the legislature has deleted the "guiding factors", contained in the erstwhile CrPC, from the corresponding anticipatory bail provision in BNSS.

“In the erstwhile provision (S. 438 CrPC) there were several guiding factors which needs to be considered while granting the anticipatory bail. The new provisions (S. 482 BNSS), however, deletes the guiding factors which the courts hearing anticipatory bail applications may have taken into account, such as nature and gravity of accusation, criminal antecedents, and the possibility of the accused to fee from justice. This deletion widens the discretionary powers of the court hearing such applications”, the Judge said.

The BNSS has introduced new conditions that may be imposed on the accused while granting an anticipatory bail. Such as: -

“that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of Section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.”, the court noted.

The Court observed that Section 482 of BNSS aligns with the recommendations provided by the Law Commission in its 41st Report, which stated that the anticipatory can be granted to the accused “where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail, there seems no justification to require him first to submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail.”

In this case, an allegation was made against the appellant that she intentionally took the complainant's phone intending to steal the phone when the appellant went to her husband's ancestral house. The appellant contended that she sought to return the phone and stated that there was no intention to commit any crime under Section 451 (house trespass), 394/34 of IPC (causing hurt while attempting to commit robbery) as the appellant went to the house of her husband and she being a daughter in law of the house had the right to visit her husband's house.

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellants because the nature of the allegations is writ large and there was no reasonable ground for holding that the appellants were likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse their liberty while on bail, there seems no justification to require them first to submit to custody, remain in prison for few days and then apply for regular bail.

Thus, without delving into the guiding factors enumerated under the Cr.P.C., the Court was inclined to grant anticipatory bail based on the conditions stipulated under the BNSS.

Thus, the following conditions were imposed on the appellants: -

"(i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required;

(ii) that the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) that the applicants shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

(iv) the applicants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.”

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application was allowed.

Appearance:

For Applicants : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate

For Respondent/State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Deputy G.A.

For Complainant : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate

Case Title: Smt. Parisha Trivedi & Anr. Versus State of Chhattisgarh, MCRCA No. 944 of 2024

Click here to read/download the judgment