ABSTRACT
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 steps into the shoes of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, promising a cleaner, more contemporary criminal process that gives due weight to efficiency, victims’ interests, and constitutional safeguards. Among its most closely watched changes are those dealing with bail, an area where courts have long proclaimed that liberty is the norm and pre-trial jail the exception, even as prisons remain packed with undertrial prisoners.
This article takes a hard look at whether the BNSS’s new bail framework actually nudges the system toward that ideal or simply rearranges familiar provisions in new language. It probes the statutory tweaks, the space left for judicial discretion, and the likely ground-level impact of measures such as time-linked release for undertrials and clearer rules for bailable and non-bailable offences. In doing so, it asks whether the BNSS truly advances a liberty-centred, bail-friendly regime or whether deeper structural problems—like policing practices, trial delays, and socio-economic barriers—still stand in the way of balancing personal freedom with the interests of justice and public safety.
KEYWORDS
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, bail, personal liberty, undertrial prisoners, criminal procedure, judicial discretion.
INTRODUCTION
Bail sits right at the core of criminal procedure, touching straight on the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Even with the Supreme Court time and again stressing that bail should be granted liberally, India still grapples with one of the world’s largest crowds of undertrial prisoners.
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, came along with the aim of shaking up criminal procedure to better match modern constitutional principles. But the real test is whether it brings genuine change to bail law or just dresses up the old ways in fresh packaging.
BAIL UNDER THE OLD CrPC: A BRIEF CONTEXT
In the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, bail hinged mostly on whether an offence was labeled bailable or non-bailable. Bailable ones meant release as a straightforward right, but non-bailable cases leaned heavily on the judge’s call.
Section 436A of the CrPC did offer some hope by requiring release after an undertrial had served half the maximum possible sentence, yet it rarely worked smoothly in practice. Court backlogs, poor legal know-how among the accused, and judges playing it safe often watered down its effect.
WHAT DOES THE BNSS CHANGE?
On the surface, the BNSS keeps the core framework of bail law pretty much intact from the CrPC. The split between bailable and non-bailable offences stays the same, along with judges’ wide latitude in tougher cases. That said, it brings in a few meaningful tweaks:
- Reaffirmation of Timely Procedures
The BNSS pushes hard for investigations and trials to wrap up on strict timelines. In principle, quicker processes mean less time rotting in jail before trial, which bolsters the case for bail indirectly.
- Codification of Undertrial Safeguards
It carries over the rules akin to Section 436A of the CrPC, sticking to the idea that keeping someone locked up too long as an undertrial tramples on their liberty.
- Victim-Centric Considerations
There’s now more spotlight on victims’ rights, letting them weigh in at key stages. This marks progress, but it could tilt bail decisions by zeroing in on the offence’s severity and ripple effects on society.
IS THE BNSS TRULY ‘BAIL-FRIENDLY’?
For all the surface-level updates, the BNSS falls short of shaking up bail law at its roots.
- Judicial Discretion Remains Central
It doesn’t really rein in the broad leeway judges have for non-bailable offences. Results can still swing wildly depending on the court, the judge, or even local habits.
- No Presumption of Bail for Minor Offences
Unlike setups in some other countries, there’s no firm statutory tilt toward automatic bail in petty or low-stakes cases.
- Socio-Economic Bias Persists
Bail still hangs heavily on sureties and cash bonds, hitting the poor and vulnerable hardest.
In short, the BNSS nods to liberty issues but leaves the big roadblocks—ones that have long choked bail access—standing tall.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
When push comes to shove, whether BNSS bail reforms take hold will hinge far more on how judges read and apply it than on the fine print itself. If courts lean into the Constitution’s push for liberty and balance, it could turn into a real step forward. Otherwise, it might just end up as another rulebook gathering dust with little bite in the real world.
CONCLUSION
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita signals a notable break from colonial-era criminal procedure, yet its bail rules show far more continuity than bold overhaul. While it holds onto current protections and nods toward smoother operations, it falls short of recasting bail as a true cornerstone of personal liberty.
All told, the BNSS comes across as thoughtfully aware of bail needs rather than outright friendly to it. Real progress will boil down to whether judges step up to weave constitutional ideals into routine bail calls.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: ARCHITHA MANIKANTAN
