Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail Under Section 480 (6) BNSS , Citing Failure to Conclude Trial Within 60 Days: Ankit Bansal v. UOI

In a significant ruling concerning the application of procedural safeguards in economic offences, the Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to Ankit Bansal, an accused in a GST-related complaint, invoking the mandate of Section 480 (6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023. Justice Anand Sharma emphasized that individual liberty remains paramount when the prosecution fails to justify trial delays.

The Backdrop of the Dispute

The petitioner, Ankit Bansal, had been in custody since June 3, 2024, in connection with a complaint filed by the Directorate of G.S.T. Intelligence (DGGI) under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Following several failed attempt at seeking regular bail and the withdrawal of previous petitions, the petitioner moved the High Court, asserting that the trial court had failed to conclude proceedings within 60 days from the first date of evidence, as required by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita .

Arguments on the Stand

The petitioner’s counsel argued that despite a list of ten witnesses, the trial court had only managed to examine three, with only one witness completing their statement. Citing the lack of progress in the trial and the potential for unending incarceration, the petitioner invoked Section 480 (6) of the BNSS , which is designed to protect accused persons from indefinite detention during trial for non-bailable offences.

Conversely, the Union of India vehemently opposed the bail plea. The respondent contended that GST-related complaints are matters of "economic offence involving hundreds of crores," and therefore, should be treated outside the strict application of general procedural codes like the BNSS . They argued that the economic gravity of the crime provided adequate justification for the trial's duration.

Judicial Reasoning: Fairness and Accountability

The Court meticulously examined the provisions of Section 480 (6) of the BNSS , noting that the prosecution failed to provide any statutory justification for why the trial could not be concluded within the prescribed 60-day window.

Rejecting the argument that the nature of the offence automatically bypasses procedural mandates, Justice Anand Sharma noted: > "Learned counsel for the respondent could not point out any provision under the Act of 2017, which may regulate the procedure for conducting the trial under the Act of 2017... he has utterly failed to show any provision of excluding the provisions of Cr.P.C. or B.N.S.S. in the Act of 2017."

The Court further clarified that the right to speedy trial is an intrinsic component of Article 21 of the Constitution. It observed that the trial court's order sheets provided no indication that the delay was attributable to the accused. Drawing on precedents such as Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh , the Court held that a liberal approach toward bail is essential when the trial is conducted at a "snail’s pace."

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that trial timelines are respected:

• On the Need for Reasons: "Recording of reasons is deemed essential to ensure that transparency, fairness and accountability in decision-making processes are duly maintained."
• On Legislative Intent: "The legislature in its wisdom has inserted specific provision of [ Section 480 (6)] of B.N.S.S., so as to ensure the fulfillment of true spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
• On the Scope of Discretion: "If the grounds were expected or intended by the legislature to be the same, there was no reason for the legislature to insert sub-section (6) of the Code."

The Final Order

The High Court allowed the third bail application, releasing Ankit Bansal upon furnishing personal bonds of Rs. 5,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 2,50,000 each. The court imposed strict conditions, including the submission of his passport, a prohibition on tampering with evidence, and a requirement to mark his attendance at the local police station monthly. This decision serves as a stern reminder that the severity of an economic offence does not grant the state an indefinite timeline to conduct a prosecution, reinforcing the fundamental right to a speedy trial.