Bail under BNSS 2023: From Judicial Discretion to the Constitutionalization of Bail

 The concept of bail is perhaps the single most important meeting point of criminal procedure and constitutional law. In India, this intersection has been re‑drawn with the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaces the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and came into force on 1 July 2024. For students, practitioners, and judges, understanding this transition—from a discretion‑heavy system to a more rule‑based and rights‑oriented framework—is essential.

This article offers a consolidated roadmap: it starts from Article 21, tracks the shift from CrPC to BNSS, explains the “triple test”, analyses key provisions like Sections 187 and 479, critically examines internal tensions such as Sections 479(2) and 482(4), and situates BNSS within the wider “dual bail regime” created by special laws like UAPA and PMLA.

1. Article 21: The bedrock of bail jurisprudence

Print Page

Supreme Court: Sovereignty Prevails Over Personal Liberty When Nation Is Threatened By Drug Trade

However, we note that recently this Court in Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi2 has referred the question concerning the approach of constitutional Courts in bail matters under special statutes, where "Article 21, prolonged incarceration and statutory restrictions intersect". In view of the said reference, we do not wish to deliberate on this issue further, save and except that in our view paramount consideration is nothing but interest of justice for all. Should there be any conflict between the sovereignty of country and personal liberty, undoubtedly, the former shall prevail, particularly, when a war is waged against the nation, be it in the form of supply of drugs, which vitally affects the national economy and health of the people. {Para 22}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 3037 of 2026

Decided On: 02.06.2026

State of Punjab Vs. Balraj Singh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0609/2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether accused implicated in criminal prosecution due to political rivalry are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail?

 Having regard to the aforesaid considerations, we are of the opinion that while adjudicating an application for anticipatory bail, a careful balance must be struck between the State's interest in ensuring a fair investigation and the individual's fundamental right to personal liberty Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in light of the principles enunciated in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra). In this context, the criminal process must be applied with objectivity and circumspection so as to ensure that individual liberty is not imperiled by proceedings that may be coloured by political rivalry. We are further of the opinion that the allegations and counter-allegations, as apparent in the present case, prima facie, appear to be politically motivated and seemingly influenced by such rivalry, rather than disclosing a situation warranting custodial interrogation, and the veracity of the allegations can be tested at trial. The right to personal liberty is a cherished fundamental right, and any deprivation thereof must be justified on a higher threshold, particularly where the surrounding circumstances may indicate the presence of political overtones. {Para 25}

26. Considering all these aspects as discussed above and in conspectus of the present case, we are of the view that the tests as enumerated for grant of anticipatory bail in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra) finds favour with the Appellant.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2294 of 2026

Decided On: 30.04.2026

Pawan Khera Vs. State of Assam

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.K. Maheshwari and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.

 Citation: 2026 INSC 437, MANU/SC/0428/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court:Whether the court should release accused on anticipatory bail if his custody is not required for recovery of documents involved in the crime?

In the recent judgment in the case of Pradip N. Sharma (supra), this Court in para 18 has observed as under:

"18. However, considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the matter is to be investigated primarily based on documentary evidence, the Court is inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the Appellant. The offences alleged pertain to the exercise of administrative discretion in the passing of an order rather than direct physical involvement in any overt criminal act requiring custodial interrogation. The prosecution has not demonstrated any necessity for the custodial interrogation of the Appellant beyond scrutiny of official records, which can be done without placing him in detention. Additionally, the Appellant has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and no material has been placed before this Court to suggest that he has evaded or obstructed the investigation in any manner. Furthermore, it is well-settled that anticipatory bail can be granted where custodial interrogation is not essential, particularly in cases where the allegations hinge on official records and the presence of the Accused can be secured without pre-trial detention. {Para 16}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2294 of 2026

Decided On: 30.04.2026

Pawan Khera Vs. State of Assam

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.K. Maheshwari and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.

 Citation: 2026 INSC 437, MANU/SC/0428/2026

Print Page

Bombay HC: The court can grant an interim bail under SC &ST Atrocities Act and simultaneously issue notice to Victim

There could be variety of situations and eventualities in which for the grant of relief it would become imperative for the court to pass an order without waiting for the service of notice to the informant/ victim. For example, prima facie case is not made out under the act and liberty of such individual is at stake. At various stages different orders are to be passed not affecting rights of the parties, etc. {Para 15}

16. In considered view of this court, appropriate interpretation to Section 15A(3) and (5) would be that right of parties involved in the proceedings cannot be decided finally without notice/hearing to the victim. This however would not take away power of the court to protect the liberty of person in appropriate cases keeping in mind the right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

17. Moreover, it is well settled principle that the prima facie observations made by the Court at interim stage are not binding on the same court while deciding the application finally. Hence, the Special Court is within is power to grant ad-interim bail and issue notice at the same instance.

18. The issue involved in this proceeding as recorded in Para 1 above is answered in affirmative. It is held that Special Court or High Court would have jurisdiction to grant ad-interim relief to protect liberty of applicant in appropriate cases and simultaneously issue notice to Victim/Informant for hearing of proceeding for its decision.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 951 of 2025

Decided On: 27.02.2026

Sahil Ramesh Sonavane Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M. Joshi, J.

Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:10270,MANU/MH/1970/2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: Accused in a private complaint case need not apply for anticipatory bail, unless a non-bailable warrant is issued by trial court

Anticipatory bail — Maintainability of in private complaint cases - Legality of — Held, Court may reject anticipatory bail but has no jurisdiction to direct surrender of accused — Further held, accused in a private complaint case need not pray for anticipatory bail, unless a non-bailable warrant is issued by that Court along with the summons  In the Supreme Court of India

(Before J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.)

Om Prakash Chhawnika alias Om Prakash 

Chabnika alias Om Prakash Chawnika 

Vs

State of Jharkhand and Another 

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 16221/2025 and ABA No. 2319/2025

Decided on April 23, 2026

Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine SC 676

Print Page

Bombay HC: Special Court or High Court have jurisdiction to grant ad-interim relief to protect liberty of applicant in offences under Atrocities Act in appropriate cases

Therefore, this court is of the view that the provision of issuance of notice is to be observed at every proceeding as is contemplated by Section 15A(3) of the Act, cannot be construed that it should be at all stages of the same proceedings, and the same would preclude the court to pass any order including grant of ad-interim protection. Any such interpretation would lead to an absurd situation such as without hearing the victim even notice cannot be issued. In absence of any provision creating an embargo on the court to grant such relief, which has been done specifically in provision of Section 18, where the case prima facie case is made out of commission of offence under Atrocities Act, court ceases to have jurisdiction to grant pre-arrest bail, it cannot be so interpreted as sought to be asked by Counsel for Appellant.

{Para 14}

15. There could be variety of situations and eventualities in which for the grant of relief it would become imperative for the court to pass an order without waiting for the service of notice to the informant/ victim. For example, prima facie case is not made out under the act and liberty of such individual is at stake. At various stages different orders are to be passed not affecting rights of the parties, etc.

16. In considered view of this court, appropriate interpretation to Section 15A(3) and (5) would be that right of parties involved in the proceedings cannot be decided finally without notice/hearing to the victim. This however would not take away power of the court to protect the liberty of person in appropriate cases keeping in mind the right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

17. Moreover, it is well settled principle that the prima facie observations made by the Court at interim stage are not binding on the same court while deciding the application finally. Hence, the Special Court is within is power to grant ad-interim bail and issue notice at the same instance.

Ratio: While victims have a statutory right to notice and hearing under Section 15A(3) & (5), this does not curtail the court’s power to grant urgent ad‑interim relief to protect liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The balance lies in hearing the victim before final disposal, but not necessarily before interim protection. Thus, the Special Court/High Court can grant ad‑interim bail and simultaneously issue notice to the victim.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 951 of 2025

Decided On: 27.02.2026

Sahil Ramesh Sonavane Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M. Joshi, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/1970/2026,2026:BHC-AS:10270.

Print Page

Whether Session Judge should grant Anticipatory bail to accused when Session triable offence is punishable with imprisonment for three years and police has issued notice to him U/S 35 of BNS?

Introduction

 When the police do not arrest an accused during investigation in a sessions-triable offence punishable up to three years, can the committal court or Sessions Court still insist on custody before bail? The answer lies in reading Section 232 BNSS through the liberty-centered lens of Satender Kumar Antil.

A man receives notice during investigation. He appears before the police, cooperates, and is never arrested. The investigation ends, the charge-sheet is filed, and yet when he appears before the committal court, he is told: since the offence is triable by the Court of Session, obtain bail from the Sessions Court first.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether the court should release the accused on anticipatory bail if dispute is of civil nature?

 I have perused the first information report. Prima-facie,

the dispute between the parties appears to be of a civil nature.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am

inclined to release the applicants on anticipatory bail. {Para 9}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3087 OF 2025

Shantadevi Mafatlal Purohit and Ors  V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. 

Mr. Bipul Maity Advocate for the Applicants.

Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for the Respondent/State.

Mr. Sunil R. Pandey i/b Adv. Raju M., Advocate for the first

informant.

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.

DATE : 06.02.2026.

Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:9463

Print Page

Supreme Court: Absconding Accused Not Entitled To Anticipatory Bail On Sole Ground Of Co-Accused' Acquittal

Although the aforesaid case dealt with quashing of the

proceedings entirely, the rationale applied therein can be

instrumental in the present case, for the reason that the High

Court, by way of the Impugned Order, granted anticipatory bail

to the Accused solely based on the fact that the prosecution failed

to produce any cogent evidence proving the involvement of the

accused persons named in the Subject FIR, in the alleged offence.

The High Court also took note of certain findings recorded in

favour of the Accused by the trial Court in its judgment dated

24.06.2023 acquitting the co-accused. However, the said

consideration is completely erroneous and perverse in an

anticipatory bail application, especially when the Accused had

been absconding for about 6 years and made a mockery of the

judicial process. In view of such circumstances, the Accused

cannot be permitted to encash on the acquittal of the co-accused

persons. Further, the High Court failed to consider that any

finding recorded by the trial Court either against or in favour of

the absconding Accused is wholly irrelevant for the purpose of

deciding the bail application as the prosecution was not required

to produce any evidence against the absconding Accused during

the trial of the co-accused persons, in view of the judgment in

Moosa (supra). {Para 49}

50. It is apposite to mention that granting the relief of anticipatory bail to an absconding accused person sets a bad precedent and sends a message that the law-abiding co-accused persons who stood trial, were wrong to diligently attend the process of trial and further, incentivises people to evade the process of law with impunity.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO…………………………OF 2026

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO. 15349 OF 2024)

BALMUKUND SINGH GAUTAM Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.

Author: VIJAY BISHNOI, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 157

DATED: 13th FEBRUARY, 2026.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Anticipatory Bail Is Never Granted In NDPS Act Cases

We are not satisfied that any error has been committed by the

High Court in refusing anticipatory bail to the petitioner in NDPS Case. {Para 2}

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9540/2025

DINESH CHANDER Vs  STATE OF HARYANA 

Date : 07-07-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN

Print Page

Supreme Court: What are parameters for deciding anticipatory bail application under Prevention of Corruption Act for attempt to obtain bribe?

 Further it is seen that, Section 7 speaks of the "attempt" to obtain a bribe as being in itself an offence. Mere demand or solicitation, therefore, by a public servant amounts to commission of an offence Under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. The word "attempt" is to imply no more than a mere solicitation, which, again may be made as effectually in implicit or in explicit terms. {Para 12}

It is urged on his behalf that the facts found do not constitute an attempt to obtain the dusturi. With this argument we are unable to agree. It appears to us that the attempt was complete when the demand was made; there was nothing further for the Petitioner to do to complete his attempt. He made the request, and it lay with the person from whom he demanded the money to comply with the request or not. We are in complete agreement with the opinion expressed by Mr. Justice Pearson in Empress of India v. Baldeo Sahai [  MANU/UP/0035/1879 : (1879) I.L.R. 2 All 253] where that learned Judge lays down that to ask for a bribe is an attempt to obtain one.

21. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the Petitioner Accused for grant of anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity in the prosecution.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3247 of 2025 +

Decided On: 03.03.2025

Devinder Kumar Bansal Vs. The State of Punjab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Citation: 2025 INSC 320, MANU/SC/0309/2025

Print Page

Supreme Court: Provisions of CRPC does not contemplate either granting of a bail on the basis of an assurance of a compromise or cancellation of a bail for violation of the terms of such compromise

  Mr. Kharat, relied on the case of Biman Chatterjee (supra) to submit that now fulfillment of the terms of compromise cannot be basis of granting or cancelling the bail. He places reliance on the paragraph No. 7 of the said decision. Case in Biman Chatterjee (supra) was a proposed settlement between a couple having matrimonial discord. Bail granted to the Accused in the said crime was cancelled on the ground that the Accused was not adhering to the settlement terms. It is in this context that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-7 has made the observations as under:

7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in cancelling the bail on the ground that the Appellant had violated the terms of the compromise. Though in the original order granting bail there is a reference to an agreement of the parties to have a talk of compromise through the media of well wishers, there is no submission made to the court that there will be a compromise or that the Appellant would take back his wife. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the courts below could not have cancelled the bail solely on the ground that the Appellant had failed to keep up his promise made to the court. Here we hasten to observe first of all from the material on record, we do not find that there was any compromise arrived at between the parties at all, hence, question of fulfilling the terms of such compromise does not arise. That apart non-fulfilment of the terms of the compromise cannot be the basis of granting or cancelling a bail. The grant of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure is governed by the provision of Chapter XXXIII of the Code and the provision therein does not contemplate either granting of a bail on the basis of an assurance of a compromise or cancellation of a bail for violation of the terms of such compromise. What the court has to bear in mind while granting bail is what is provided for in Section 437 of the said Code. In our opinion, having granted the bail under the said provision of law, it is not open to the trial court or the High Court to cancel the same on a ground alien to the grounds mentioned for cancellation of bail in the said provision of law. {Para 20}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 3219/2025

Decided On: 28.07.2025

Gajanan Dattatray Gore Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1004/2025,2025 INSC 913.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court : If an accused obtains anticipatory bail by suppressing material facts (e.g., prior rejections or hidden criminal antecedents), the Court will not hesitate to cancel it.

 In the present case, the allegations against the Accused Respondents, including Accused-Vishwajeet, are grave in nature. There is a clear observation by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the bail rejection order dated 7th September 2023 that the Accused Respondents tried to mislead the Court by concealing the fact that the ex parte injunction order dated 27th June, 2023 had been set aside in appeal. The High Court seems to have glossed over this important aspect of the case and granted indulgence of pre-arrest bail to the Accused Respondents without considering the nature and gravity of allegations attributed to them and the fact that there was an imminent need for custodial investigation of the Accused Respondents. {Para 19}

20. Additionally, the High Court failed to notice the criminal antecedents of the Accused persons, which are highlighted in the counter affidavit filed by the State. Apparently, the incident recorded in the FIR was a clear-cut attempt by the estranged husband (Accused-Vishwajeet) to dispossess his own wife (Appellant-complainant) from her lawfully inherited property i.e., the subject-hotel, by use of force and by employing henchmen to do the dirty work. Hence, considering the gravity of allegations, it is not a case warranting indulgence of pre-arrest bail to the Accused. In our view, the High Court clearly erred in granting such liberty to the Accused Respondents. Furthermore, by threatening the witnesses, the Accused-Vishwajeet has flouted the conditions of anticipatory bail order. For this reason, also he cannot be allowed to continue on anticipatory bail.

Ratio: Anticipatory bail is an "extraordinary remedy." If an accused obtains it by suppressing material facts (e.g., prior rejections or hidden criminal antecedents), the Court will not hesitate to cancel it.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 3088 of 2025 

Decided On: 21.07.2025

Nikita Jagganath Shetty Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sandeep Mehta, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 878, MANU/SC/0957/2025

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether the court may grant Anticipatory Bail Where Proclamation Is Issued in a Mechanical or Casual Manner?

When the liberty of the appellant is pitted against, this Court will have to see the circumstances of the case, nature of the offence and the background based on which such a proclamation was issued. Suffice it is to state that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, on the condition that the appellant shall cooperate with the further investigation. However, liberty is also given to the respondents to seek cancellation of bail that has been granted, in the event of a violation of the conditions which are to be imposed by the Trial Court or if there are any perceived threats against the witnesses. {Para 9}

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, JJ.)

Asha Dubey Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 

Criminal Appeal No. 4564 of 2024 (@ SLP(Crl.) No. 13123/2024

Decided on November 12, 2024

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5633.

Print Page

P & H HC: Under which circumstances, the court can set aside dismissal of anticipatory bail application?

Although the general rule is that a Criminal Court lacks jurisdiction to recall its own orders, it cannot be ignored that the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application of the respondents'-accused's occurred in circumstances that warranted reconsideration. The private respondents cannot be made to suffer due to an error committed by a police official, nor can they be penalized for the administrative exigency resulting from the unexpected declaration of a holiday. The decision of the Trial Court to entertain the recall application in the circumstances cannot be said to be an arbitrary or capricious exercise of jurisdiction but a necessary step to prevent a miscarriage of justice. {Para 13}

14. This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order granting anticipatory bail to the private respondents. The facts of the case present an exceptional situation where the recall of the earlier order was warranted to ensure that justice was not compromised due to an inadvertent error. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any compelling reason justifying the cancellation of bail, as the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional overreach. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

(Before Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.)

CRM-M-58257-2024

Pritpal Singh Vs  State of Punjab and Others 

Decided on February 13, 2025

Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 1014

Print Page

Supreme Court: The court should not release accused on anticipatory bail for offence U/S 302 of IPC if there are specific averments against them in FIR

As for the matter with regard to grant of

anticipatory bail to the respondents-accused, the

law has been enunciated by this Court in Sushila

Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1, wherein it

was held that the following factors have to be

considered while granting the relief of

anticipatory bail, which are as follows:

“92.4. Courts ought to be

generally guided by

considerations such as the

nature and gravity of the

offences, the role attributed to

the applicant, and the facts of the

case, while considering whether

to grant anticipatory bail, or

refuse it. Whether to grant or not

is a matter of discretion; equally

whether and if so, what kind of

special conditions are to be

imposed (or not imposed) are

dependent on facts of the case,

and subject to the discretion of

the court.” {Para 12}

13. Considering the above laid law and the fact that

there are specific averments in the FIR against all

the accused persons including the respondents

herein that all of them had set the deceased on

fire with an intention to kill him, we fail to

understand as to how the High Court had

granted relief of anticipatory bail to the

respondents in an offence under Section 302 of

the IPC. The High Court has erred in granting the

relief in a cryptic and mechanical manner

without considering the materials available on

record including the chargesheet which stated

that the case has been found true against all the

accused persons of such a heinous offence of

murder by pouring kerosene oil and setting the

deceased on fire.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

SHAMBHU DEBNATH Vs THE STATE OF

BIHAR & ORS. 

Author: VIKRAM NATH, J.

Citation:  2024 INSC 1032.

Dated: DECEMBER 20, 2024

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether attesting witness of forged sale deed is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail?

 So far as regards applicant Bharat Darandale is concerned, he is an attesting witness to the forged document. Legal position is very clear that a witness is not supposed to know contents of the document. He has attested as a witness. It is his case that he attested the said document at the instance of applicant Sanjay. Bharat is not beneficiary under the document. {Para 8}

9. Considering all these facts, this Court is inclined to grant him (Bharat Darandale), anticipatory bail.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 472 of 2022 and 446 of 2022

Decided On: 27.04.2022

Sanjay Padmakar Darandale Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.G. Avachat, J.

Citation: 2023 ALLMR (CRI) 974, MANU/MH/4901/2022.

Print Page

Designated Courts Under MPID Act: Jurisdictional Clarity and Practical Applications - A Critical Analysis of Milind Satish Sawant v. State of Maharashtra

 

Abstract

The judgment in Milind Satish Sawant v. State of Maharashtra decided by Justice Amit Borkar of the Bombay High Court represents a landmark decision that clarifies the jurisdictional scope of Designated Courts under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act). This case involved a sophisticated investment fraud scheme operated through Mars Finance, affecting over 127 investors and causing losses exceeding ₹7.29 crores. The judgment addresses critical legal questions concerning the concurrent jurisdiction of MPID Designated Courts to try both MPID Act offences and related Indian Penal Code (IPC) offences, while also establishing important precedents for bail jurisprudence in economic fraud cases.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Under which circumstances the offence under The Essential commodities Act will be non bailable?

The case debated on whether the offences under the Essential Commodities Act were bailable - It was held that the offences were made 'cognizable' by the amendment of 1974, Section 10-A but by the amendment of 1981, the offences were made 'non bailable' initially for the five years but finally for fifteen years - As that period had been lapsed, the position would revert back to the offences being cognizable only - Further, since the charges against the petitioners were framed under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act , providing for seven years of Rigorous Imprisonment, the same would render the offence cognizable and non bailable.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Writ Petition No. 302 of 1999

Decided On: 26.08.1999

Purthviraj Chandrakant Shinde and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.K. Barde and B.B. Vagyani, JJ.

Author: V.K. Barde, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/0606/2000.

Print Page