Section 480(6) of BNSS allows bail after 60 days in custody but does not confer an absolute right, requiring judicial discretion based on trial progress and flight risk.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with CID CB Cyber PS Case No.21 of 2024 corresponding to GR Case No.395 of 2024 pending in the file of learned JMFC (UTP), Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.419/420/465/467/468/471/120-B/34 of IPC r/w Sections 66 (C)/66(D) of IT Act, on the main allegation of cheating the gullible investors by alluring them to invest online in the fictitious company like TECHSTARS PRO with the advice of a WhatsApp group created by him & others in the name of “Ram Investment Academy” and in the process, cheating the informant for a sum of Rs.2,58,60,000/-.

2. Heard, Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record.

3. Bail to the petitioner is mainly sought for on three following grounds; such as (i) non-conclusion of trial in terms of Section 480 (6) of BNSS , (ii) illness of mother of the petitioner and (iii) on merit, but this Court at the inception takes the first plea of the petitioner for consideration of bail in exercise of power U/S.480(6) of , which provides for as under:-

“480(6) BNSS . If, any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs.”

4. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it apparently clear that the aforesaid provision mandates that in case of a non-bailable offence which is being tried by the Magistrate and the trial has not been concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case and the accused has remained in custody during whole of the said period, he becomes eligible to be released on bail, however, the Magistrate can still decline the benefit of the aforesaid provision to the accused by recording reason in writing. The legal issue that arise for consideration is whether Section 480 (6) of BNSS gives an absolute right to the accused to seek bail, if the conditions stipulated therein stands fulfilled or still there is discretion at the hand of Magistrate, but on a careful consideration of the aforesaid provision, it is apparently clear that this provision on one hand enables the Magistrate to grant bail, if the requirement of (6) of stands fulfilled, whereas on the other hand, it vests a discretion at the hand of the Magistrate to decline bail to an accused for the reasons to be recorded in writing. In the sequence of such legal position, this Court considers that the Magistrate is required to strike a balance between two conflict interests, such as sanctity of the personal liberty and in the interest of justice, but this Court, however, notes a word of caution that the provision of (6) of have to be construed strictly in favour of the personal liberty, otherwise declining bail even the accused fulfills the conditions of (6) of on the grounds which are considered to be relevant in normal circumstance would be considered doing violence to the provision to the statute, inasmuch as refusing bail by merely importing some words on normal grounds would result in defeating the very object of the aforesaid provision, which would otherwise render the provision to a mere dead letter.

5. No dou