The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal filed by Narayan and set aside the order dated 11 March 2026 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore cancelling his bail in a case registered under Section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915. A Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed that the High Court was not justified in cancelling the bail solely on the ground of the appellant’s alleged involvement in a subsequent offence under the same Act, because the conditions prescribed under Section 480(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) could not have been imposed in the first place.
The appellant was granted bail by the High Court on 20 November 2024 in M.Cr.C. No. 49016/2024 in connection with Crime No. 388 of 2024 registered at Police Station Kannod, District Dewas, for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915. While granting bail, the High Court had imposed the stringent conditions stipulated under Section 480(3) BNSS. Subsequently, the State filed an application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C./Section 483(2) BNSS seeking cancellation of bail on the ground that the appellant had been found involved in another similar offence under the Excise Act, thereby violating the bail conditions. The High Court accepted the State’s contention and cancelled the bail, holding that the appellant had a propensity to commit the same offence.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act carries a maximum punishment of three years’ imprisonment and is a non-bailable offence, but it does not fall within the category of offences for which the special conditions under Section 480(3) BNSS can be imposed. The Court, after hearing the parties, agreed with this submission. It clarified that Section 480(3) BNSS empowers the Court to impose specific conditions only where the accused is charged with an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more, or offences under Chapters VI, VII or XVII of the BNSS, or abetment, conspiracy or attempt to commit such offences. Since the punishment for the offence in question (and the subsequent offence) is less than five years, the conditions contemplated under Section 480(3) BNSS were not imposable. Consequently, there could be no violation of such conditions so as to justify cancellation of bail.
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal at the admission stage itself by consent of the parties. While allowing the appeal and restoring the bail granted to the appellant, the Court cautioned that the accused shall not indulge in any other criminal activity. It made it clear that if the appellant is found involved in any offence falling under Section 480(3) BNSS or otherwise, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
The order is significant for clarifying the scope of bail conditions under the new criminal procedure law and protecting the liberty of accused persons in cases involving offences with lesser punishment from unwarranted cancellation of bail on technical grounds.
Case Title: Narayan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. __ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7011 of 2026)
Date of Order: 22 April 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Click HERE for full Order
Lawcutor 