Section 436 of the CrPC provided that a person accused of a bailable offence shall be released on bail if they are willing to furnish bail bonds. The right to bail was absolute. The court had no discretion to refuse bail.

Section 484 BNSS retains the right to bail for bailable offences. A person accused of a bailable offence shall be released on bail if they are willing to furnish bail bonds. The right remains absolute. However, the BNSS clarifies that the court may impose conditions to ensure the accused’s presence and cooperation.

The core principle remains unchanged — bail is a matter of right for bailable offences. However, the BNSS provides clearer guidelines on the procedure and introduces the possibility of imposing minimal conditions to secure the accused’s presence at trial. This is a procedural clarification rather than a substantive change.

Section 437 of the CrPC provided that a person accused of a non-bailable offence may be released on bail by the court. The court had discretion to grant or refuse bail based on factors such as the nature of the offence, the likelihood of the accused fleeing, and the risk of tampering with evidence.

Section 483 BNSS continues to provide discretion to the court in non-bailable offences. However, the BNSS introduces stricter criteria for serious offences. The court must now consider: (1) Nature and gravity of the offence; (2) Role of the accused; (3) Likelihood of absconding; (4) Risk of tampering with evidence; (5) Risk of influencing witnesses; (6) Previous criminal antecedents; (7) Public interest and societal concerns.

The key changes are: (1) Enhanced scrutiny for serious offences; (2) Clearer guidelines on factors to be considered; (3) Stricter criteria for granting bail in cases involving heinous crimes; (4) Greater emphasis on the conduct of the accused; (5) Consolidated provisions for special laws under Section 483(2).

Section 438 of the CrPC empowered the High Court and the Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail. It provided that when any person has reason to believe that they may be arrested for a non-bailable offence, they may apply for a direction that in the event of such arrest, they shall be released on bail.

Section 482 BNSS continues to empower the High Court and the Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail. However, it introduces several new provisions: (1) Specified timelines for disposal of applications; (2) Stricter criteria for grant in serious offences; (3) Clearer guidelines for imposing conditions; (4) Enhanced scrutiny of the applicant’s conduct and antecedents; (5) Provision for interim protection while the application is pending.

The key changes are: (1) Timelines for disposal are now specified; (2) Courts must conduct a more thorough examination of the applicant’s conduct; (3) Conditions must be reasonable and directly related to ensuring the accused’s presence; (4) Punitive conditions (like cleaning police stations or sharing location) are prohibited; (5) The court must consider the gravity of the offence and the applicant’s antecedents.

Under the CrPC, interim bail was not explicitly mentioned but was granted by courts under their inherent powers. Courts could grant interim bail while a regular or anticipatory bail application was pending, to prevent unnecessary detention.

Under the BNSS, interim bail continues to be granted by courts under their inherent powers. The BNSS does not explicitly mention interim bail but recognizes the court’s inherent authority to grant temporary protection to prevent injustice. The principles remain the same — interim bail is a stop-gap arrangement until the main application is decided.

The core principles remain unchanged. However, the BNSS’s emphasis on timely disposal of applications may reduce the need for prolonged interim bail. Courts are expected to decide main applications quickly, minimizing the duration of interim protection.

Under the CrPC, courts had broad discretion to impose conditions for bail. Common conditions included: (1) Appearance before the court; (2) Cooperation with the investigation; (3) Not tampering with evidence; (4) Not influencing witnesses; (5) Surrender of passport; (6) Reporting to the police station periodically.

The BNSS continues to allow courts to impose conditions, but with clearer guidelines: (1) Conditions must be reasonable; (2) Conditions must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence; (3) Conditions must have a direct nexus to ensuring the accused’s presence; (4) Punitive conditions are prohibited; (5) Conditions must be enforceable by the accused.

The key changes are: (1) Clearer guidelines on reasonableness; (2) Prohibition of punitive conditions (like cleaning police stations or sharing location); (3) Emphasis on proportionality; (4) Requirement that conditions must be directly related to ensuring the accused’s presence; (5) Greater scrutiny of conditions by higher courts.

Under the CrPC, bail could be cancelled on grounds such as: (1) Violation of bail conditions; (2) Tampering with evidence; (3) Influencing witnesses; (4) Absconding; (5) Committing another offence while on bail. The court had inherent power to cancel bail.

Under the BNSS, the grounds for cancellation remain similar. However, the BNSS provides clearer procedural guidelines: (1) The accused must be given an opportunity to be heard; (2) The court must consider the gravity of the violation; (3) The court must balance the liberty of the accused against the interests of justice; (4) Cancellation must be based on cogent grounds.

The key changes are: (1) Clearer procedural safeguards; (2) Emphasis on hearing the accused before cancellation; (3) Requirement of cogent grounds for cancellation; (4) Greater scrutiny of applications for cancellation; (5) Consistency with the principles of natural justice.

Under the CrPC, there were no specific timelines for disposal of bail applications. This often led to delays, with accused persons remaining in custody for extended periods while their applications were pending. The lack of timelines was a significant flaw in the system.

The BNSS introduces specific timelines for disposal of bail applications. The Supreme Court has further directed that: (1) Bail applications decided after hearing must be disposed of on the same day or next day; (2) Reserved bail orders must be pronounced the next day; (3) Detailed judgments must be uploaded within 7 days (max 15 days in exceptional cases); (4) Reserved judgments must be pronounced within 3 months maximum.

The key change is the introduction of mandatory timelines. This is a significant reform that aims to prevent unnecessary detention and ensure speedy justice. The timelines apply to all courts across India and are binding on all high courts. This is one of the most progressive aspects of the new law.

Under the CrPC, special laws like UAPA, PMLA, and NDPS had their own provisions for bail, often imposing stricter conditions. The “twin conditions” under PMLA Section 45 and NDPS Section 37 required the court to be satisfied that the accused was not guilty and not likely to commit any offence while on bail. These provisions were scattered across various statutes.

Section 483(2) of the BNSS consolidates the provisions for special laws. It provides that in cases under special laws, the court must consider the specific provisions of those laws while deciding bail. The “twin conditions” remain applicable under PMLA and NDPS. However, the BNSS provides a more coherent framework by consolidating these provisions.

The key changes are: (1) Consolidation of provisions under Section 483(2); (2) Clearer guidelines for applying special law provisions; (3) Recognition that special laws impose stricter conditions; (4) Emphasis on the court’s duty to consider the specific provisions of special laws; (5) Consistency with the overall framework of the BNSS.

The Supreme Court held that constitutional guarantees under Article 21 possess dominant force over all statutory enactments, including special legislation such as the UAPA. The Court emphasized that prolonged incarceration and undue delay in trial can override statutory embargo, reinforcing that even under the BNSS, liberty cannot be disregarded indefinitely.

The Court held that an absconding accused cannot claim parity with acquitted co-accused. This judgment reaffirms that conduct remains a crucial factor in bail decisions under the BNSS, and that courts must independently assess each accused on the material available.

The Supreme Court cancelled the bail of a murder accused who had absconded for nine years. The Court held that prolonged abscondence is a material consideration that weighs heavily against liberty, reinforcing that the BNSS does not reward evasion of law.

The Court held that bail conditions enabling constant tracking of an accused’s movements violate the right to privacy under Article 21. This judgment clarifies that even under the BNSS, punitive or invasive conditions are unconstitutional.

No. The principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” remains intact. However, the BNSS introduces stricter scrutiny for serious offences.

The main differences are: (1) Specified timelines for disposal; (2) Clearer guidelines for bail conditions; (3) Consolidation of special law provisions; (4) Enhanced scrutiny for serious offences.

Anticipatory bail under BNSS Section 482 now has specified timelines, stricter criteria for serious offences, clearer guidelines for conditions, and enhanced scrutiny of the applicant’s conduct.

The Supreme Court has directed that bail applications be decided on the same day or next day. Reserved judgments must be pronounced within 3 months maximum.

No. The Supreme Court has held that punitive conditions like cleaning police stations or sharing location are void and unconstitutional.

The twin conditions under PMLA Section 45 and NDPS Section 37 require the court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Section 483(2) of the BNSS consolidates the provisions for special laws, providing a more coherent framework for bail in UAPA, PMLA, NDPS, and other special statutes.

Yes. Bail can be cancelled on grounds such as violation of conditions, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or absconding. However, the BNSS provides clearer procedural safeguards.

Yes. Interim bail continues to be granted by courts under their inherent powers while a regular or anticipatory bail application is pending.

If a reserved judgment is not delivered within three months, the matter must be automatically placed before the chief justice. If the judgment remains pending, the chief justice may reassign the case to another bench.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – the new criminal procedure code replacing CrPC.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – the old criminal procedure code replaced by BNSS.

A pre-arrest court order directing that if arrested, the person shall be released on bail immediately.

Bail granted to a person already in custody, seeking release pending trial.

Temporary bail granted for a short period while a regular or anticipatory bail application is pending.

An offence where bail is not a matter of right. Court has discretion to grant or refuse bail.

An offence where bail is a matter of right. The accused can claim bail as a right.

Under PMLA Section 45 and NDPS Section 37, the court must be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.