The Kerala High Court has clarified that Magistrates are not barred from considering bail applications at the committal stage, despite the second proviso to Section 232 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The ruling came from Justice V.G. Arun while hearing Crl.M.C. No. 6925 of 2025, filed by Vishnu, the sole accused in Crime No. 27/2024 registered by the Kattakkada Excise Range Office, Thiruvananthapuram.
Case Background
The petitioner, Vishnu (36), was accused under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act for allegedly selling Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) from his rented house. Excise officials claimed they seized one litre of IMFL from his possession on May 8, 2024.
Vishnu’s earlier attempts to secure anticipatory bail before both the Sessions Court and the High Court were rejected. He then approached the High Court again, seeking permission to surrender before the trial court with a request that his bail application be considered the same day.
- Petitioner’s counsel argued that Magistrates may hesitate to consider bail applications due to the second proviso to Section 232 BNSS. They urged that dismissal of earlier anticipatory bail pleas should not influence the Magistrate’s decision. Reliance was placed on the Kerala High Court’s ruling in Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 KHC 43).
- The Public Prosecutor opposed leniency, pointing out that Vishnu had absconded during investigation and failed to appear during the committal stage. However, it was also clarified that the second proviso to Section 232 does not prevent Magistrates from considering bail applications.
Read Also:- Madras High Court Denies Wife Interim Maintenance, Orders Support Only for Son
Justice V.G. Arun examined Section 232 of the BNSS (equivalent to Section 209 of the CrPC). The Court noted:
“If the second proviso is interpreted as prohibiting the Magistrate from considering bail, it would deprive the accused of the right to seek bail until the case is committed to the Sessions Court.”
The Court stressed that bail is a statutory right linked to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Referring to Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor (1978) 1 SCC 240, the Court highlighted Justice Krishna Iyer’s words:
“The issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety, and burden on the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitised judicial process.”
The High Court also cited Satendar Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51, affirming that Magistrates have the discretion to grant bail or remand an accused during committal proceedings.
Read Also:- Madras High Court Allows Vinayagar Chaturthi Celebrations with Strict Eco-Friendly Guidelines
The Court ruled that the second proviso to Section 232 does not bar Magistrates from deciding bail pleas. Accordingly, it directed the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kattakkada, to consider Vishnu’s bail application in C.P. No. 185 of 2024 and pass orders, preferably on the same day it is filed.
Case Title: Vishnu vs. State of Kerala
Case Type: Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C.)
Case Number: Crl.M.C. No. 6925 of 2025
Crime Number: Crime No. 27/2024, Kattakkada Excise Range Office, Thiruvananthapuram
Petitioner (Accused): Vishnu, 36 years, Resident of Chandramangalam, Thiruvananthapuram
Respondent: State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
