In a significant ruling on the interpretation of India’s newly enacted criminal laws, the Gauhati High Court has clarified that Section 482(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) must be interpreted purposively. The court held that the word “and” used in the provision must be read as “or”, thereby denying anticipatory bail to persons accused under either Section 65 or Section 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The ruling came in a bail application moved by an individual accused under Section 65 of the BNS, which deals with “organised crime.” The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS, which corresponds to the anticipatory bail provision under the former CrPC (Section 438).

The prosecution opposed the plea citing Section 482(4) BNSS, which explicitly bars anticipatory bail to those accused under Section 65 and Section 70 (which pertains to “terrorist acts”). The petitioner, however, argued that since he was charged only under Section 65 and not under both sections, the bar would not apply.

Delivering the judgment on June 6, 2025, Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita ruled that a strict grammatical interpretation would defeat the legislative objective of preventing misuse of bail in cases involving national security and public safety.

“The word ‘and’ as used in Section 482(4) BNSS must be read conjunctively only where it aligns with legislative intent. In this context, a literal reading would allow accused under either of these serious offences to seek anticipatory bail. That cannot be what the legislature intended,” Justice Kalita observed.

The court ruled that the provision must be read disjunctively, meaning that if a person is accused under either Section 65 or Section 70, the embargo on anticipatory bail under Section 482(4) would apply.

Legal Significance

This ruling sets a strong precedent in the early interpretation of BNSS and BNS, India’s new criminal codes that replaced the CrPC and IPC respectively in 2023. The judgment reinforces the seriousness of offences like organised crime and terrorism, and reflects a strict approach in dealing with them at the pre-trial stage.

The decision also signals how courts are likely to approach textual ambiguities in the BNSS with a purposive and context-sensitive lens, especially in provisions related to public interest and national security.

As the new codes come into operation, this ruling will likely be cited frequently in bail matters where the prosecution raises Section 482(4) as a bar. It also strengthens the understanding that minor drafting inconsistencies in the law will be interpreted in line with the law’s object and purpose.