Should Bail Under Section 483 of the BNSS Act Be Granted to an Accused Who Has Violated Bail Conditions, with Multiple Antecedents and Absconding Co-accused?

LawSikho
August 26, 2025
Category: Calcutta High Court

Calcutta High Court reaffirms discretionary denial of bail where prior bail conditions were breached, antecedents are adverse, and co-accused remain at large—binding on all subordinate courts

Summary

Category	Data
Case Name	CRM(M) 741 of 2025 of Suraj Tewary @ Suraj Tiwari vs State of West Bengal
CNR	WBCHCA0270972025
Decision Date	25-08-2025
Disposal Nature	Rejected
Judgment Author	Hon’ble Justice Suvra Ghosh
Court	Calcutta High Court
Bench	Single Judge
Precedent Value	Affirmation of existing principles
Overrules / Affirms	Affirms
Type of Law	Criminal Procedure (Bail)
Questions of Law	Whether bail under Section 483 of the BNSS Act, 2023 can be granted when the accused has violated prior bail conditions, has multiple criminal antecedents, and co-accused are absconding
Ratio Decidendi	The court’s inherent discretion under Section 483 of the BNSS Act permits refusal of bail where the accused breaches bail conditions. Multiple criminal antecedents, both prior to and during the proceedings, weigh heavily against bail. Absconding co-accused undermines investigation and trial, justifying denial. Prior cancellation of bail for violation evidences disregard for court orders. Cumulative factors led to rejection of the bail application.
Facts as Summarised by the Court	Petitioner has been in custody for about two years in Jagaddal PS Case No. 916/2019 under Sections 302, 201, 120B, and 34 IPC. Bail was initially granted under Section 483 BNSS Act, 2023 but later cancelled for breach of conditions. Several criminal antecedents surfaced before and after the present case. Some co-accused remain absconding.

Practical Impact

Category	Impact
Binding On	All subordinate courts under the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

Bail under Section 483 BNSS Act can be refused where the accused violates bail conditions.
Multiple antecedents—pre- and post-case registration—are a strong ground against bail.
Absconding co-accused is a relevant factor militating against grant of bail.
Prior cancellation of bail for misconduct critically impacts renewal applications.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

The petitioner’s conduct—breach of earlier bail condition—demonstrates disregard for court orders.
Multiple criminal antecedents, surfaced both before and during proceedings, weigh against bail.
Absconding co-accused impede investigation and trial, justifying refusal.
Under Section 483 BNSS Act, the court’s discretion must account for conduct, antecedents, and impact on justice administration.
Weighing these factors cumulatively, bail was denied at this stage.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

Sought renewal of bail after two years in custody.

State & De facto Complainant

Opposed bail, citing breach of bail conditions, multiple antecedents, and absconding co-accused.

Factual Background

The petitioner has been detained for nearly two years in connection with Jagaddal PS Case No. 916/2019, involving IPC Sections 302, 201, 120B, and 34. He was initially granted bail under Section 483 of the BNSS Act, 2023, which was later cancelled due to breach of condition. Multiple criminal antecedents emerged, and some co-accused remain at large. Renewal of bail was opposed by the State and the de facto complainant, leading to the present rejection.

Statutory Analysis

The judgment hinges on Section 483 of the BNSS Act, 2023, which vests the High Court with inherent discretionary power to grant or refuse bail. The court held that discretion must weigh the accused’s conduct on bail, antecedents, and the effect on investigation and trial. No new interpretation beyond standard discretionary principles was applied.

Alert Indicators

Precedent Followed