In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that the bar on anticipatory bail in cases punishable with death or life imprisonment, as previously imposed under Section 438(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in Uttar Pradesh, no longer applies following the enforcement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The judgment, delivered on July 3, 2025, by Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, clarifies that Section 482 of the BNSS, which now governs anticipatory bail, does not contain any prohibition like the one introduced by the U.P. Amendment Act, 2019, to Section 438(6) CrPC. This indicates a deliberate legislative departure, effectively removing the earlier restriction.
The court was hearing the second anticipatory bail plea of Abdul Hameed, who had been summoned in connection with a 2011 murder case, although he was not named in the original chargesheet.
His first bail application was rejected in February 2023 based solely on the CrPC bar applicable in Uttar Pradesh at the time.
Following the enactment of BNSS, which repealed the CrPC from July 1, 2024, Hameed filed a fresh application under Section 482of BNSS.
Although the Sessions Court rejected the plea in March 2025, the High Court took a different view.
State’s Argument vs. Court’s Findings
The state counsel contended that since the crime occurred in 2011 and proceedings were initiated under the CrPC regime, the applicant could not invoke the BNSS provisions to bypass the earlier statutory bar.
However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the BNSS constitutes a new legal framework, and its application to cases post-enactment is valid.
The court found that the absence of a corresponding restriction under Section 482 BNSS was intentional, reflecting Parliament’s deliberate choice to eliminate the previous bar.
The High Court reasoned that the change in law constituted a material change in circumstance, warranting a fresh hearing on the merits.
It clarified that since the earlier bail rejection was solely on maintainability grounds—not on the merits of the case—there was no legal barrier to entertaining a new anticipatory bail plea under the
BNSS framework.
Legal Implications
The Court underlined that the omission of Section 438(6)’s bar in BNSS is significant, particularly given the prior inclusion of such a clause through a state-specific amendment.
This points to the legislature’s intent to liberalize the anticipatory bail provisions under the new legal regime.
The court also cited its 2024 judgment in Deepu and 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others, which had affirmed that any application filed after July 1, 2024, would be governed by BNSS, making the applicant eligible for relief under the newer and more liberal provisions.
By allowing the anticipatory bail application of Abdul Hameed, the High Court has set a landmark precedent in interpreting the BNSS.
It has been confirmed that the repeal of CrPC and the coming into force of BNSS nullify the earlier statutory limitations on anticipatory bail in grave offences within Uttar Pradesh, offering broader protection to the accused under the new law.
