Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Lack of Mens Rea Justifies Bail in Multiple Cases
Analysis and Conclusion- The consistent judicial stance across these cases underscores that lack of mens rea is a decisive factor in bail considerations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Courts tend to grant bail when there is reasonable doubt about the accused's criminal intent, especially in non-violent or civil dispute-related offences.- This approach aligns with the principle that bail should be granted unless there is compelling evidence of deliberate criminal intent, ensuring the presumption of innocence and protecting individual liberty.- Therefore, in cases involving offences under Sections 110, 115, 118, 126 of BNS, the absence or doubt about mens rea has been a primary basis for allowing bail, reflecting a cautious approach to criminal liability where intent is not clearly established.
In the evolving landscape of Indian criminal law, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, has introduced new sections that replace older provisions under the Indian Penal Code. One common query from accused persons, lawyers, and families is: Whether Section 118(1) BNS is bailable? This question often arises alongside Sections 110 and 115 BNS, as these offences frequently appear in FIRs involving allegations of attempts, abetment, or false evidence/statements.
This blog post delves into judicial interpretations, highlighting that bail is the rule and jail is the exceptionHariprasad S Vs State Of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(KER) 947, particularly when there's no evidence of mens rea (criminal intent). We'll explore key principles, case analyses, and practical recommendations. Note: This is general information based on reported judgments and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which governs procedural aspects, courts consistently uphold that bail is the rule and jail is the exception Hariprasad S Vs State Of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(KER) 947Gopesh S/o. Gopinathan Vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 575. This principle holds especially true for offences with maximum punishments up to three years, as seen in Sections 110, 115, and 118 BNS.
These sections are typically non-bailable on paper, but courts grant regular or anticipatory bail liberally when certain conditions are met. The key differentiator? The absence of mens reaHariprasad S Vs State Of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(KER) 947. Without deliberate criminal intent, prolonged detention is deemed unnecessary.
Mens rea, or guilty mind, is a cornerstone of criminal liability. Courts have repeatedly ruled that offences under these sections, if committed without intent, do not warrant custodial interrogation. For instance:
The courts have held that the absence of mens rea (criminal intent or intention) and the nature of the offences—often involving lesser maximum punishments—favor granting bail. Hariprasad S Vs State Of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(KER) 947
In Hariprasad S Vs State Of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(KER) 947, the court granted bail emphasizing no prior criminal antecedents and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary because the accused lacked prior criminal antecedents and the offences involved no evidence of criminal intent. Similarly, Gopesh S/o. Gopinathan Vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 575 noted the offences were serious but no criminal antecedents were noted, and custodial interrogation was deemed unnecessary, supporting bail with conditions.
This approach ensures fairness, preventing arbitrary arrests while allowing investigations to proceed with bail conditions like reporting to police or not tampering with evidence.
Section 118(1) BNS punishes false evidence with up to three years imprisonment. While classified as non-bailable, judicial trends favor bail:
The same logic extends to Sections 110 and 115(2), where preparatory acts or abetment without knowledge/intent justify release.
The court reiterated: bail is the rule and jail is the exception, especially where no prior antecedents and the maximum punishment is three years, and highlighted that custodial interrogation must be justified. Bail was granted due to absent mens rea.
Here, the bench considered the lack of criminal antecedents and the nature of the offence, ruling that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and bail with conditions should be granted.
These rulings underscore that detention is only for clear necessity, like uncovering truth via custody.
Recent judgments from various high courts align with this view, integrating Sections 110, 115, and 118 BNS:
In MIRASH ALIAS AJMAL vs STATE OF KERALA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 25551, involving Sections 115(2), 118(1), 127(2), and 296(b) BNS alongside SC/ST Act provisions, the court noted: It is contended that the mens rea of the appellant in the commission of the alleged offences is absent. The lack of mens rea justified anticipatory bail, even under stringent SC/ST laws. The court found insufficient evidence of mens rea for the alleged offences, leading to the granting of anticipatory bail. Facts involved false implication post a road dispute, with IO reporting unsubstantiated atrocity claims.
DINESH Vs STATE OF HARYANA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(PH) 1127 addressed Sections 110, 115 BNS: Section 110 of BNS are not made out as there is no mens rea on the part of the petitioner as there was no previous enmity. The petitioner, not named in the initial FIR, got anticipatory bail as there are no specific allegations or need for custodial interrogation. This family dispute case emphasized false implication and no prior enmity.
SRI.VINOD v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 40417 referenced Sections 115(2), 118(1) among others, where petitioners (accused Nos. 2 and 5) were enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest. This supports the pattern of conditional bail without custody.
These cases illustrate a consistent judicial leniency when mens rea is doubtful, extending to anticipatory bail scenarios.
While the trend favors bail, exceptions exist:- Concrete evidence of intent: Proven mens rea or deliberate acts may lead to denial Hariprasad S Vs State Of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(KER) 947.- Threat to society: Risk of reoffending, absconding, or public order issues.- Custodial necessity: If interrogation reveals deeper conspiracy.- Repeated offences: Criminal antecedents tilt against bail Gopesh S/o. Gopinathan Vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 575.
Courts balance these via hearings, often imposing strict conditions.
If facing charges under Section 118(1) or related BNS sections:- Emphasize absent mens rea: Argue no deliberate intent, supported by evidence like lack of enmity DINESH Vs STATE OF HARYANA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(PH) 1127.- Highlight punishment quantum: Stress up to three years makes jail exceptional Hariprasad S Vs State Of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(KER) 947.- Prove no custody need: Show cooperation willingness; seek conditions like GPS tracking.- Cite precedents: Reference above cases to strengthen pleas.- File promptly: For anticipatory bail if arrest apprehension, especially if not FIR-named DINESH Vs STATE OF HARYANA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(PH) 1127.
Typically, Section 118(1) BNS is treated as bailable in practice when mens rea is absent, aligning with Sections 110 and 115. Courts prioritize liberty, granting bail with safeguards unless compelling reasons exist. As summarized: bail is typically allowed in cases under Sections 110, 115, and 118 of BNS when there is no evidence of mens rea or criminal intent, especially when the maximum punishment is limited to three years Hariprasad S Vs State Of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(KER) 947Gopesh S/o. Gopinathan Vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 575.
Key Takeaways:- Bail > Jail without mens rea.- Use judgments like Hariprasad S Vs State Of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(KER) 947, MIRASH ALIAS AJMAL vs STATE OF KERALA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 25551 strategically.- Always seek professional advice.
Stay informed on BNS evolutions—this principle upholds justice's fairness. Share your thoughts below!
Disclaimer: Content based on public judgments; outcomes vary by facts. Not legal advice.
#BNSBail, #Section118BNS, #MensReaBail
The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 126(2), 351(2), 115(2) and 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ). ... I feel that the mens rea of the petitioner is doubtful. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. 9. ... In the result, these Bail Application is allowed as follows: (a) The peti....
The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 296 (b), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2) r/w Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( for short ‘BNS’). ... It is further submitted that the petitioners did not have the mens rea for the commission of the alleged offences. The case of the petitioners is that the present crime has been registered du....
The offences alleged against petitioner No.1 and the other accused are punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 190, 296(b), 329(3), 115(2), 118(1) and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. ... The learned counsel for petitioner No.1 submitted that petitioner No.1 and the other accused had no mens rea in the commission of the alleged offences, which is evi....
The materials placed before the Court lead to the inference that there is some doubt as to the mens rea of the petitioner in the crime. The petitioner has not used any weapon. ... The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Section s 296 (b), 351(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2) r/w Section 3 (5) of the a href=".. ... In the result, the Bail Application is allowe....
The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 117(2) and 329(3) r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. ... The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue arose from a civil dispute and the petitioners have not developed the mens rea in the commission of the alleged offences. 6. ... In the result, this Bail....
He is allegedly to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 127(2) and 296(b) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and cheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. ... It is contended that the mens rea of the appellant in the commission of the alleged offences is absent. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail#HL_END....
However harsh or severe the harassment, unless there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306. 24. ... What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probab....
They are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 115 (2), 118(1) and 126(2) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ). ... It is submitted that the mens rea of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences is doubtful. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. The petitioners are prepared to co-operate with t....
Section 110 of BNS are not made out as there is no mens rea on the part of the petitioner as there was no previous enmity as stated by the complainant. BNS S, 2023 seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.13, dated 05.01.2025, under Sections 110, 115 , 191(2) , 191(3) Section 110 of BNS . 4. .......
), 118(1), 109, 189(2), 189(4), and 190 of the BNS, 2023. ... The petitioners - accused Nos.2 and 5 are enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.373/2024 registered by the Madivala police station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 189(2), 189(4) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 on ... In t....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
