Allahabad High Court
HARVINDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
Section 480(6) of the BNSS applies only to magistrates, and the High Court may refuse bail if it records reasons and no new ground is raised.
Summary
Harvindra Singh filed a second bail application in a case involving forgery and cheating under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS). The applicant relied on Section 480(6) of the BNSS, arguing that because the trial had not concluded within 60 days of the first date fixed for evidence, he must be released on bail. The State contended that Section 480(6) applies only to magistrates, not to the High Court, and that no new ground was raised after the first bail denial. The Court held that the provision indeed governs magistrates and that the High Court may reject bail if it records reasons, especially when the offence carries a life‑imprisonment penalty. Since the applicant offered no fresh ground, the Court rejected the bail application and disposed of the matter.
Issues considered
- Whether Section 480(6) of the BNSS obliges the High Court to grant bail after a 60‑day trial delay.
- Whether a second bail application must raise a fresh ground after an earlier denial.
- Whether bail can be denied despite the statutory 60‑day period given the seriousness of the offence.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(4), 336(3), 336(4), 338, 340(2), 480(6), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- Section 480(6)
- High Court
- Magistrate jurisdiction
- forgery
- cheating
- trial delay
- BNSS
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33969 of 2026
Harvindra Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shyam Surat Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Shyam Surat Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Suryansh Chaudhary, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Roshan
Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This is a second bail application which has been filed on behalf of the
applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 070 of
2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 336(4), 340(2) & 61(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023, Police Station Mawana, District
Meerut, during the pendency of the trial. The first bail application of the
applicant, being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21958 of 2025, was
rejected on 19.03.2026, being the principal offender of forgery and
cheating.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that as per Section
480(6) of BNSS, if a case is triable by the Magistrate and the trial of that
case is not concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed
for taking evidence, then such person shall be released on bail unless
reasons are recorded by the Magistrate. In the present case, the first date
for taking evidence was fixed on 20.07.2026 and 60 days have passed on
21.09.2026, therefore, in view of Section 480(6) of BNSS, the applicant
should be released on bail. It is further submitted that the applicant has no
criminal history. It is further submitted that charge-sheet has been filed in
the present case, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial
interrogation. The applicant is a law-abiding citizen and he is languishing
BAIL No. 33969 of 2026
2
in jail since 26.05.2025. In case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant as well as learned
A.G.A. for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and
submitted that Section 480(6) of BNSS is applicable to the Magistrate and
not to the High Court. He further submitted that once the High Court has
already rejected the first bail application of the applicant, then in the
second bail application the applicant should have raised a new ground. It
is further submitted that no other ground has been raised by learned
counsel for the applicant, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be
released on bail.
5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that
though the offence is triable by the Magistrate, but Section 338 of the
BNS is punishable up to life imprisonment and the present case is a case
of forgery and cheating regarding the property, and this Court has already
considered the entire case on merits in the first bail application, and
insofar as Section 480(6) of BNSS is concerned, firstly, that is applicable
to the Magistrate and even if the trial is not concluded within 60 days
from the first date fixed for evidence, in that case the bail can be rejected
for the reasons to be recorded. This Court has already recorded detailed
reasons while rejecting the first bail application. No other ground has
been raised by learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, this Court is
not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
6. Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant is
hereby rejected.
7. Application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
September 24, 2026
SA
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…