SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 451

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Narayan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7011 of 2026)
Decided On : 22-04-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, AOR Ms. Harshita Lulla, Adv. Mr. Ritik Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ayush Haritash, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Surjeet Singh, Adv. Mr. P. N. Razdan, Adv.

Bail cancellation for subsequent offence punishable with less than five years' imprisonment not justified, as conditions under Section 480(3) BNSS inapplicable.

Headnote:(A) M. P. Excise Act, 1915 - Section 34(2) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNSS] - Sections 480(3), 483(2) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Cr.P.C.] - Section 439(2) - Bail - Cancellation - Subsequent offence punishable with imprisonment less than five years - Conditions under Section 480(3) BNSS not imposable - Cancellation solely on such ground not justified - Liberty to State to seek cancellation if accused indulges in offences attracting Section 480(3) BNSS or other criminal activity. (Paras 5, 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
Aggrieved by order cancelling bail granted earlier for offence under Section 34(2) of Excise Act, on ground of involvement in repeated offence under same Act, via application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C./483(2) BNSS.

Findings of Court:
Impugned order set aside; appeal allowed by consent; bail restored with direction not to indulge in criminal activity, failing which State at liberty to apply for cancellation.

Issues: Whether cancellation of bail justified solely for subsequent offence under Excise Act punishable with less than five years' imprisonment.

Ratio Decidendi: Provisions of Section 480(3) BNSS applicable only to offences punishable with seven years or more or specified chapters; since punishment for subsequent offence less than five years, said conditions not imposable; cancellation not sustainable. (Para 5)

Result: Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

How to interpret the impact of Section 480(3) BNSS on bail cancellation where subsequent offences have lesser punishment?

What is the Supreme Court's stance on cancelling bail under Section 34(2) MP Excise Act, 1915 in light of BNSS provisions?

What are the conditions under which bail can be cancelled or not, as clarified by this judgment?


Table of Content
1. appeal admitted and disposed by consent at initial stage. (Para 1 , 4 , 8)
2. high court cancelled bail for subsequent m.p. excise offence. (Para 2 , 3)
3. s.480(3) bnss inapplicable for offences punishable under five years. (Para 5)
4. order set aside with liberty for future bail cancellation. (Para 6 , 7)

ORDER

1) Leave granted.

2) Being aggrieved of the order [High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore], passed by the High Court2 [Order dated 11.03.2026 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 28857 of 2025] of cancellation of bail on account of involvement of the appellant in repeated offence under the M. P. Excise Act, 1915, the present appeal has been filed.

3) The High Court, vide the impugned order, has cancelled the bail granted to the appellant-accused in M.Cr.C. No. 49016/2024 on 20.11.2024 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, on an application filed by the State under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.3 [Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] / 483(2) BNSS4 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] 2023.

4) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, by consent, we are inclined to dispose of this appeal at the initial stage itself, by consent of the counsel appearing for the parties.

5) Having considered the provisions as contained in Section 480(3) BNSS, it is clear that if a person accused or suspected of commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter VII or Chapter XVII of the or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail, in that situation, the Court may be in a position to impose conditions as specified therein. In the facts of the present case, since the punishment for subsequent offence is less than five years, the conditions as stipulated in (3) are not imposable. Therefore, at present, cancellation of bail on account of involvement in the subsequent offence solely based on Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, is not justified.

6) In this view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the order impugned passed by the High Court and allow this appeal.

7) However, we make it clear that the accused shall not indulge in any other activity of criminal nature. If he is found involved in respect to the provisions of Section 480(3) BNSS or otherwise the State is at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail.

8) Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top