This article is written by Anubhav Pandey and Gautam Chaudhary. The present article highlights the difference between bailable and non-bailable offences with relevant examples. It also provides the list of Bailable and Non-Bailable offences under the Indian Penal Code.
This article has been published by Sneha Mahawar.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, classifies offences into compoundable, non-compoundable, bailable, and non-bailable. The present article will deal with bailable and non-bailable offences. Bailable offences are those offences where setting free an individual from a prison’s confinement is a matter of right. In simple terms, it means that bail can be taken as a right without any prohibition. Whereas non-bailable offences are offences where bail is a matter of discretion. In these cases, the judge critically examines the facts and other relevant factors to decide whether to grant bail or not. The concept of bailable and non-bailable offences and the provisions of bail is one of the most crucial concepts in criminal procedure since, on one hand, they talk about the personal liberty of the accused and, on the other hand, they try to strike a balance between their constitutional freedom and the safety of society. In this article, we will discuss the different types of bailable and non-bailable offences defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and we will also shed some light on the law of bail under criminal law.
Difference between bailable and non-bailable offences
|Basis||Bailable offences||Non-bailable offences|
|Gravity||In bailable offences, the gravity of the offence is lower as compared to non-bailable offences.||In non-bailable offences, the gravity of the offence is higher.|
|Punishment||In bailable offences generally, the quantum of sentence is below or up to three years. Although there are exceptions in respect of this rule. For example, the offence of kidnapping under Section 363 of the IPC is bailable but is punishable by imprisonment for seven years and a fine.||Sentences are higher in the case of non-bailable offences as they are punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment which may exceed three years or seven years.|
|Bail||In bailable offences, bail can be granted as a matter of right.||In non-bailable offences, bail is not a matter of right, but rather it is a matter of the discretion of the court of law.|
|Power to grant bail||In case of bailable offences, either the police officer or the court can grant bail.||In the case of non-bailable offences, mostly the accused get bail through a court of law. Yet there is a provision under Section 437 subsection 4 that empowers the police officer to grant bail while recording reasons in writing. Though, in reality, police officers do not grant bail.|
|Offence||Refusal of bail in case of a bailable offence shall amount to wrongful confinement under Section 342 of IPC.||There is no offence committed if the officer or the court does not grant bail to the accused.|
|Examples||Kidnapping (363 IPC), Stalking (354D), Dishonest Misappropriation of Movable Property (404 IPC) and Cheating (417 IPC) etc.||Criminal Breach of Trust(406 IPC), Theft(379 IPC), Snatching (379A IPC), Rape (376 IPC), Murder(302 IPC) and Culpable Homicide(304 IPC) etc.|
The origin of the bail system
The bail system dates back to England before the Norman Conquest. When the Roman empire fell in the early fifth century CE, the kings of the Germanic Tribe took control of western Europe. At that time, the justice system of the Germanic tribes did not call for it to be appropriate and civil, since their justice system was filled with vengeance and numerous unjustified killings. As they used to follow the principle of “eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth”, wherein the member of a group in which a killing happened was permitted to avenge his kin’s death, this led to what was called at that time, “blood feuds”. The said violent feuds would then lead to the destruction of peace and harmony in society because the existing system enabled individuals to kill the person accused of killing, which ultimately led to non-ending killings and fights.
Then, in order to prevent violence and blood feuds, the Anglo-Saxons introduced a system where the person charged with an offence was to pay compensation. These compensatory payments were divided into three categories, each having its own character and purpose. The first one was called “wergil,” which was the payment given to the victims’ family group; the second was “bot,” which was given for the treatment of any injuries suffered by the victim; and the last was “wile,” which was given to the authorities as a fine for having committed the offence.
In the second half of the seventh century, the Anglo-Saxon kings introduced a new system to supersede the old one to ensure justice in society. This system, for the first time, originated in the presence of judicial officers to adjudicate matters where the accused was supposed to give payment called “borb” and fulfil any requirements as asked by the judicial officer. The whole motive of this system was to ensure the presence of the accused throughout the trial.
The concept of bail under English law gained proper structure after the Norman, Bretons, French, and Flemish troops invaded England and took control over its governance. According to them, the criminal justice system meant everything apart from the existing notions, which is why they considered the offences which were to be considered private wrongs to be a crime against the State or the Crown. In 1275, King Edward-1 transformed the bail system because he was of the view that sheriffs were operating corrupt practices by giving bail to those who bribed them and refusing it to those who were truly entitled to it. Therefore, the Statute of Westminster was formulated.
The Statute of Westminster, which was enacted in 1275, proved to be comprised of various drawbacks and to overcome these drawbacks, the Petition of Rights, 1628 and the Habeas Corpus Act in 1678 were introduced. Lastly, the major legislation passed in 1898, allowed the accused with a poor financial background to furnish bail through a surety, and they were exempted from paying the bail amount.
History of bail in India
Since the Indian Criminal Justice system is a product of the British Raj as Lord Canning was the one who introduced the Criminal Procedure Code and Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay codified the same in 1973. They passed on the same rules and provisions that existed in the United Kingdom at that time. In other words, the Criminal Procedure Code of India inherited the same structure and notions from the British Raj that it had formulated in the early Indian colonial years.
What are bailable offences
The definition of bailable offences under Section 2(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 states that bailable offences are those offences which are shown as bailable in the first schedule of the code. The said definition cannot be termed exhaustive since the given definition does not answer the question as to what these offences are. Therefore, in simple terms, bailable offences can be termed as offences where bail is a matter of right because they are of no grave nature in respect to the seriousness and that is why generally they are punishable for three years or below or with a fine. Although presumption towards a light offence does not always render it bailable in nature due to the presence of numerous exceptions present contrary to this rule, as the offence of sedition under Section 124A of the IPC is punishable with imprisonment for three years but is non-bailable. On the other hand, an offence under Section 335 of the IPC, which talks about causing grievous hurt by means of grave provocation, is punishable with imprisonment for 4 years but is still bailable in nature. In the case of bailable offences, bail can be given as a matter of right and it can be taken from the police officer in whose custody the accused is, or through the court of law.
For further explanation, one must look at Schedule One of the Criminal Procedure, where the offences that are not serious in nature are bailable. For example, an offense under Section 143 of the IPC talks about penal punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly and it is classified as bailable. The same is with an offence of obscene acts and songs under Section 294 of the IPC and an offence under Section 323, which talks about voluntarily causing hurt.
Bail in bailable offences
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Rasiklal v. Kishore Khanchand Wadhwani (2009), held that “the right to claim bail granted by Section 436 in a bailable offense is an absolute and indefeasible right.” Therefore, it is clear from above that bail in cases of bailable offenses, unlike non-bailable offences where bail is a matter of the court’s discretion is no doubt a right through which an accused can request bail from the police authorities and the court, and after doing so, it cannot be denied on any ground.
Section 436 of the Criminal Procedure Code (1973) deals with bail in cases of bailable offences. It states that when any person is arrested or detained by an officer in charge of the police station for a bailable offence without a warrant, and such person when brought before the court of law or himself appears before it, shall be released on bail when he is ready to give bail either while in custody or at any stage of the proceeding. The same was observed in Ratilal Bhanji v. Asstt. Customs Collector (1967), “that a person accused of a bailable offence has on arrest a right under Section 436 to be released on bail.”
Further, refusal of bail by a police officer in the case of a bailable offence will attract penal consequences, as was held in Dharmu Naik v. Rabindranath Acharya (1978), “refusal to grant bail in contravention of Section 436 will make the detention illegal and the police officer causing such detention may be held guilty of wrongful confinement under Section 342 IPC.”
Types of bail
The term “interim” literally means “for an interval,” and therefore, in the case of interim bail, it is understood that bail is granted for a specified period of time by the court. The interval can be for fifteen days or even a month. At these intervals, the accused is released from prison and, after the expiry of the granted period, the accused is again committed to prison.
Accused in order to get interim bail can file an application in the concerned court and pray for interim bail. The court, after looking at the facts of the case and the nature of the offence charged, passes an order. Interim bail can only be granted in the case of non-bailable offences, since in bailable offences, bail is a matter of right. It is to be noted that the concerned court is at full liberty to extend the period of interim bail if it thinks fit. Referral can also be made to Athar Parvez v. State (2016), where the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held “that there must exist exceptional circumstances in relation to the release of the accused for interim bail”.
Bail in non-bailable cases is termed as “regular bail.” Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code states the provisions in respect of regular bail in criminal cases. It provides that when any person is accused who is accused of or suspected of committing a non-bailable offence is arrested or detained by an officer in charge of a police station without a warrant and when he is brought or appears before a court other than the high court or the court of sessions, then such person may be released on bail as per the discretion of the court, except in the following cases:-
- When there exist reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence where the quantum of sentence is imprisonment for life or death.
- When such an offence is cognizable in nature and where he has been previously convicted of an offence which was punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or more. He will also not get bail if he has been convicted on two or more occasions of a cognizable and non-bailable offence.
The Code of Criminal Procedure also gives certain provisos in respect of the above-stated cases. Firstly, if in the above-said cases the accused is a person who is under sixteen years of age, or is sick, or is infirm, or is a woman, then the court may grant them bail. Secondly, it provides that in cases where the accused has been previously convicted on two or more occasions of a non-bailable and a cognizable offence or he is charged with a cognizable offence, and where he has been previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for seven years or more, then the court, for special reasons, after it has found and is satisfied that the release of the accused is just and proper, may grant him bail. It also provides that the refusal of bail on the ground of identification of the accused by the witness in the investigation shall not be sufficient if he is entitled to bail otherwise, and he shall also give an undertaking in regards to compliance with directions which may be given by the court.
Lastly, it states that an accused person shall not be released on bail without giving an opportunity to the public prosecutor if the offence with which he is charged is punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or more.
Sub-section 2 of Section 437 provides that if the officer or the court at any stage of trial, inquiry, or investigation is of the opinion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence, but is of the opinion that there exist grounds for further investigation into his guilt. Then in such cases, the accused shall be released on bail subject to Section 446A, i.e., the execution of a bail bond. Bail in such cases can be furnished by the accused by executing a personal bond at the discretion of the officer or the court.
Sub-Section 3 of the present Section provides for the conditions which can be imposed while granting bail. It says that the court while granting bail to a person who is accused of or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend up to seven years or more, or is an offence given under chapter VI, XVI, or XVII of the Indian Penal Code or is an offence of abetment, conspiracy or attempt to commit, any offence given under the above-mentioned chapters shall impose the following conditions:-
- That the accused person shall attend the court proceeding in accordance and compliance with the conditions specified on the bond.
- That the accused person while he is on the bail shall not commit an offence same as the offence of which he is accused or suspected.
- That the accused shall not directly or indirectly induce, make a promise, or a threat to any person who is familiar with the case as to prevent him from disclosing incriminating facts to police officers or tampering with the evidence.
- Sub-section 3 further provides that the court is at full discretion to impose any condition that it may deem fit in the interests of justice.
Further sub-sections 4 and 5 of Section 437 provide for the general procedure followed by the officer and the court in respect of bail. Whereas sub-section 4 states that the officer or the concerned court shall record reasons or special reasons in writing while granting bail under sub-section 1 and 2.
Moving on to sub-section 6, which is related to trials before a magistrate, it is stated that if in a case triable by a magistrate, the trial of the person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within sixty days from the first date wherein the court sets up for taking evidence, then in such a case, the accused shall be granted bail if he was in custody for the whole period. Also, in such cases, if the magistrate, even after the fulfilment of the said condition, is of the view and opinion that such a person should not be released, he would reject the bail while recording the mandatory or necessary reasons for the same. The recording of reasons by the magistrate is of utmost importance in this subsection.
At last, subsection 7 of Section 437 provides provisions relating to the road map after the conclusion of the trial, wherein it states that if after the conclusion of the trial and before the pronouncement of the judgement, the court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds which reflect that the accused is not guilty of a non-bailable offence, then the court shall release the accused. And if he is in custody, then after the execution of his personal bond.
Default bail is also called mandatory bail. The provisions regarding default bail are given under Section 167, subsection 2, where it is stated that if the investigation officer does not file the charge sheet within a specific prescribed time which is 90 days for cases of an offence punishable by death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years. And 60 days in the case of any other offence except the former ones. Then, the accused shall be released on bail if he is prepared to take it. An investigation can be defined as a procedure or process that an investigating officer goes through in order to collect evidence. The sole purpose of investigating an offence is to collect pieces of evidence against the accused person. After completing the investigation, the investigating officer files a final report under Section 173 of the Code, and if he fails to file the report within the above-mentioned period, the accused is freed on default bail.
In simplest terms, anticipatory bail is a kind of protection against future arrest wherein a court grants bail to a person who has reasonable grounds for an arrest in relation to a non-bailable offence. According to Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the high court or sessions court may grant anticipatory bail to a person who has a reasonable apprehension of future arrest for a non-bailable offence. The present section further provides that the applicant may only file bail applications to the high court and sessions court, so it can be said that the ambit of anticipatory bail is only given to higher criminal courts.
Section 438 also states the following factors after which the court may grant anticipatory bail:
- The nature and gravity of the accusation;
- The past criminal record of the applicant includes the fact as to whether he has previously faced imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence.
- The possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice.
- Where the accusation made on the applicant is for the sole purpose of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him arrested.
Application for bail
In bailable offences
In a practical sense, the bail application procedure in cases of bailable offences is simple compared to non-bailable offences. If the person is accused of a bailable offence, he/she has the right to be released on bail. For the same, after arrest, the accused person can get bail from the police officer in the police station itself, where he simply has to arrange sureties for his bail. It is mandatory for the accused to procure bail from the court even after getting bail from the police as a part of the procedure. Such bail is called judicial bail.
In Haji Mohammed Wasim v. State of U.P (1991), it was held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court that “a person released on bail by the police should seek a fresh bail from the Court since it is a part of the trial’s procedure. A person in order to get bail in bailable offences from the court shall file an application under Section 436 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 stating the facts of the case and giving assurance he shall not escape the law and shall adhere to the orders of the Court. After filing the application the accused can furnish bail either on his personal bond or through his sureties.”
In non-bailable offences
The procedure for procuring bail in non-bailable cases is completely different than in the case of bailable offences. Although as per sub-section 4 of Section 437 of the Code, the police officer, while writing sufficient reasons, has the power to grant bail even in non-bailable cases, but in real practical practice in the court, the police officer does not allow the accused to be free on bail. They present the accused in court and advise him to go for judicial bail.
Judicial bail in such cases is filed under Section 437 if the case is pending before any court other than the sessions court and under Section 439 if the case is pending before the sessions or a high court. In the application, the accused, through his counsel, briefs the court with the facts of the case and also gives out the grounds for bail. While stating the grounds for bail, the accused also refers to the judicial precedents in his favour to create an authority on the judge. At the end of the application, the accused assures that he shall adhere to the conditions if any set up by the court and tells the court how he will furnish bail, whether through surety or personal bond.
Right to be released on bail
The right to be released on bail answers the question of whether the accused has an undeniable right to be released on bail. The answer to the question lies in Sections 436 and 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 436 deals with bail in bailable offences wherein it is written clearly that when a person is arrested or detained in for a bailable offence he shall be released on bail. The word “shall” imposes mandatory operations upon the police officer or the court to grant bail in such cases. Thus, it is clear that in the case of bailable offences, the accused has an undeniable and unrestricted right to bail which cannot be taken away from him by the police or even the court.
In Rasiklal v. Kishore Khanchand Wadhwani (2009), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “the right to claim bail granted by Section 436 in a bailable offence is an absolute and indefeasible right. In bailable offences, there is no question of discretion in granting bail as the words of Section 436 are imperative.”
Whereas in the cases of non-bailable offences, the accused does not have a right to be released on bail because in such cases bail is granted at the discretion of the court. The concerned court looks at various factors for deciding bail matters in non-bailable cases. Some of the factors are the facts of the case; the age of the accused; the sex of the accused; health and sickness; the family background of the accused; and the role of the accused in the criminal transaction, etc.
What are non-bailable offences
For better understanding, let’s begin with certain examples like the offense of murder, rape, culpable homicide, abetment of suicide, etc. After reading about these offenses, a man often develops a sense of fear and seriousness in his mind and body. These offences put a barrier of chaos over the smooth running of the lives of the common public. Not to forget what effects such offences have on the peaceful harmony of society.
Because of the above-stated reasons and the effects of such offences on the lives of common people and over the whole society, our legislature has categorised them as non-bailable. Non-bailable offences are not defined anywhere in the Code, but for general comprehension, these offences can be termed as heinous in nature. These offences are of grave seriousness in nature and this is why they are termed non-bailable. The reason for categorising these offences as non-bailable is the safety of the common public in society. It would be difficult and unsafe for a common man to live if there were offenders roaming free on the streets.
Bail in non-bailable offences
Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the procedure for bail in non-bailable offences. Through the general reading of the said section, one may find that the word “may” is used more than twice, and this brings us to our understanding that in cases of non-bailable offences, bail is entirely dependent on the discretion of the court of law. The same was held in Pramod Kumar Maglik v. Saihna Rani (1989), that “the term ‘may’ denotes the discretion of the court.”
But what amount of discretion
The court’s jurisdiction In the words of Benjamin Cardozo in G. Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor (1977), is stated as:
“The judge is never free as he is always occupied with the questions related to the personal freedom and liberty of a person facing a criminal trial, he is expected to adjudicate the matter at hand in accordance and agreement with the already existing laws and provisions, he is to exercise his sole discretion along with clear justification, logical reasoning and mature mindset, looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, he is never to be influenced by the sentiments of either of the party because he must only look at the facts and question of law.
Now talking about the circumstances in which the court grants bail to an accused, for this, the case of Mansab Ali v. Irsan (2002), can be read as part and parcel, where the Hon’ble Apex Court of the land held that “since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it is required to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interests of society at large.”
In conclusion, it can be said that the following factors to be considered for the grant of bail are:-
- The gravity of the charge
- The nature of the accusation
- The nature of the evidence in support of the conviction
- The length of the trial
- The danger of witnesses being tampered with
- The nature and circumstances in which the offence is committed
- The health, age, and sex of the accused
Sanjay Kumar Gupta v. the State of U.P., (2021)
In the present case, the Court came across the question of
- Whether accused has the right to anticipatory bail after he is committed to custody by the investigation agency?
- Whether the anticipatory bail can be granted by making generalised observations about the process of law, fundamental rights, or any particular study report?
The Supreme Court observed that after being taken into custody, the accused person does not possess the right to file anticipatory bail, but he is at full liberty to go for regular bail under Sections 437 and 439, as the case may be. Concerning the second issue, the Hon’ble Court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted through generalised observations; what has to be put before the court is relevant and incriminating facts and solid documents.
Prem Shankar Prasad v. the State of Bihar, (2021)
The Supreme Court, in this case, decided the question as to whether a person declared absconder in law is entitled to get relief of anticipatory bail. The Hon’ble Court held that in the case of absconders, the relief of anticipatory bail is completely absent.
Kanumuri Raghrama Krishnan Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2021)
In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a high court can entertain a bail application under Section 439 of the Code if the accused directly approaches the court without resorting to the trial court. The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative and said that the provisions of Section 439 are concurrent and that just because the accused approached the high court without resorting to the trial court does not mean the high court cannot entertain his application.
Sudha Singh v. the State of U.P., (2021)
The Supreme Court, in this case, held that the effect on the victims and family members of the victim resulting from the accused’s bail is to be calculated by the courts only. Where it is further held that the personal freedom of the accused is no doubt important but the effect of the accused’s bail on the victims, which is yet to be examined, and the victim’s family members is also to be taken care of with utmost precaution and justified reasoning.
Bailable offence is one where the defendant (the one who is defending himself in a criminal case) may be able to secure his release upon the payment of bail. These are the cases where the grant of bail is a matter of course and right.
If a person is held under a non-bailable oﬀence, he cannot claim the grant of bail as a matter of right. But the law gives special consideration in favour of granting bail where the accused is under sixteen, a woman, sick or inﬁrm, or if the court is satisfied that it is just and proper for any other special reason to give rather than refuse bail.
List of bailable and non-bailable offences under the Indian Penal Code
|107||Abetment||Depends on the offence||Depends on the offence|
|120B||Criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death||Depends on the offence. E.g. for Punishment for murder, Non-bailable||Depends on the offence|
|121||Waging or attempting to wage war, or abetting the waging of war, against the Government of India||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for life or imprisonment upto 10 years along with fine|
|Imprisonment for life and fine or
Imprisonment for 3 years and fine or fine.
|131||Abetting mutiny or attempting to seduce a soldier, sailor or airman||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for life or 10 years with fine|
|140||Wearing soldier’s garb, sailor, airman||Bailable||Imprisonment for 3 months along with 500|
|144||Punishment for unlawful assembly||Bailable||Imprisonment for 6 months with fine|
|154||Owner or occupier of land on which unlawful assembly is held||Bailable||INR 1000 fine|
|158||Being hired to be part of unlawful assembly or riot||Bailable||Imprisonment for 6 months up to 2 yrs along with fine|
|166A||Public servants disobeying directions under law||Bailable||Imprisonment for 6 months up to 2 yrs|
|167||Public servants framing an incorrect document||Bailable||Imprisonment for 3 years and fine|
|172||Absconding to avoid service of summons||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for 1 month or a fine of INR 1000|
|177||Furnishing false information||Bailable||Imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of INR, 1000|
|181||False statement on oath to public servants||Bailable||Imprisonment for 3 years along with fine|
|186||Disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant||Bailable||Imprisonment for 3 months and a fine of INR 500|
|189||The threat of injury to a public servant||Bailable||Imprisonment for 2 years along with fine|
|191||Giving false evidence||Bailable||Imprisonment for seven years along with fine|
|195A||Threatening any person to give false evidence||Bailable||Imprisonment for seven years along with fine|
|203||Giving false information respecting an offence||Bailable||Imprisonment for two years along with fine|
|210||Fraudulently making false claim in court||Bailable||Imprisonment for two years along with fine|
|213||Taking a gift, to screen an offender from punishment||Bailable||Imprisonment for three to seven years along with fine|
|223||Escape from confinement or custody negligently suffered by a public servant||Bailable||Imprisonment for two years along with fine|
|228||Intentionally insult or interrupt to public servant sitting in a judicial proceeding||Bailable||Imprisonment for 6 months along with a fine of INR 1000|
|232||Counterfeiting Indian coin||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for life or 10 years with fine|
|238||Import or export of counterfeiting Indian coin||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for life or 10 years with fine|
|246||Fraudulently diminishing the weight of a coin||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for 3 years with fine|
|255||Counterfeiting of government stamp||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for 3 years with fine|
|264||Fraudulent use or false instrument for weighing||Bailable||Imprisonment for 1 year with fine|
|269||Negligent acts likely to spread infectious diseases dangerous to life||Bailable||Imprisonment for 6 months with fine|
|272||Adulteration for food or drink intended for sale||Bailable||Imprisonment for 6 months with a fine of INR 1000|
|274||Adulteration of drug||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for 6 months with a fine of INR 1000|
|275||Sale of adulterated drug||Bailable||Imprisonment for 6 months with a fine of INR 1000|
|279||Rash driving or riding on a public way||Bailable||Imprisonment for 6 months with a fine of INR 1000|
|283||Danger or obstruction in public way or line of navigation||Bailable||INR 200|
|292||Sale of an obscene book||Bailable||Imprisonment for 2 years with a fine of INR 2000|
|295||Injuring places of worship with an intent to insult the religion of any class||nb||Imprisonment for 2 years with a fine.|
|295A||A deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings of any class, by insulting religious beliefs.||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for 3 years with a fine|
|297||Trespassing on burial places||Bailable||Imprisonment for 1 year with a fine.|
|302||Punishment for murder||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for a life term or capital punishment|
|304||Punishment for Culpable homicide not amounting to murder.||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for 10 years with fine|
|304A||Punishment for causing death by negligence||Bailable||Imprisonment for 2 years.|
|304B||Dowry death||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for 7 years up to life term.|
|306||Abetment of suicide||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for 10 years with a fine.|
|307||Attempt to murder||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for 10 years with a fine.|
|308||Attempt to commit culpable homicide||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for 3-7 years with a fine.|
|309||Attempt to commit suicide||Bailable||Imprisonment for 1 year or with a fine.|
|318||Concealment of birth by secret disposal of the body||Bailable||Imprisonment for 2 years with a fine.|
|323||Causing hurt||Bailable||Imprisonment for 1 year with a fine.|
|349||Using force||Bailable||Imprisonment for 3 months or with a fine of INR 500|
|354D||Stalking||Bailable||Imprisonment for 3 months or with a fine.|
|363||Punishment for Kidnapping||Bailable||Imprisonment for 7 months or with fine|
|369||Abduction of a child under 10||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for 7 months or with fine|
|370||Trafficking of person||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for 7-10 years or with fine|
|376||Punishment for Rape||Non-bailable||Rigorous imprisonment for life or not less than 7 years|
|376D||Gang rape||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for 20 years which may extend till life|
|377||Unnatural offence||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for 10 years which may extend till life|
|379||Punishment for Theft||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for 3 years and fine|
|384||Punishment for Extortion||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for 3 years|
|392||Punishment for Robbery||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for 3 years and fine|
|395||Punishment for Dacoity||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for 10 years and fine|
|406||Punishment for Criminal breach of trust||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for 3 years and fine|
|411||Dishonestly receiving Stolen property||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for 3 years and fine|
|417||Punishment for Cheating||Bailable||Imprisonment for 1 year and fine|
|420||Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for 7 years and fine|
|426||Punishment for Mischief||Bailable||Imprisonment for 3 months|
|447||Punishment for Criminal trespass||Bailable||Imprisonment for 3 months and a fine of INR 500|
|465||Forgery||Bailable||Imprisonment for 2 years and fine|
|477A||Falsification of accounts||Bailable||Imprisonment for 2 years and fine|
|489A||Counterfeiting currency notes or banknotes||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for life and fine|
|489C||Possession of forged currency notes or banknotes||Bailable||Imprisonment for 7 years and fine|
|494||Marrying again during the lifetime of the husband or wife||Bailable||Imprisonment for 7 years and fine|
|496||The marriage ceremony was fraudulently gone through without lawful marriage||Bailable||Imprisonment for 7 years and fine|
|498||Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent||Bailable||Imprisonment for 2 years and fine|
|498A||Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty||Non-bailable||Imprisonment for 3 years and fine|
|500||Punishment for Defamation||Bailable||Imprisonment for 2 years and fine|
|506||Criminal intimidation||Bailable||Imprisonment for 2 years for a simple offence and 7 years if the threat is to cause death or grievous hurt|
|509||Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman||Bailable||Imprisonment for 3 years and fine|
|510||Misconduct in public by a drunken person||Bailable||Imprisonment for 24 hours and a fine of INR 10|
So, this is the list of bailable & non-bailable offence under IPC. Did the article add value to you? Drop a Comment & Share the article.
If you want to learn more about Criminal laws, you can take up the Certificate Course in Advanced Criminal Litigation and Trial Advocacy. This certificate course provides practical knowledge and know-how to young lawyers and law students who intend to make a mark in criminal litigation. Whether you want to start your own practice, join a senior lawyer or pursue a personal matter, this course will provide a strong foundation. The course is not limited to a provision-by-provision study of the statute and associated case laws alone. It trains you on different kinds of actual work that is required to be performed by criminal lawyers and other professionals dealing with crime. Consult a good criminal lawyer for bail-related issues.
The concept of bail in India has gone through various stages of dynamic change. Every change has moulded the law of bail and the Supreme Court of India has played a paramount and vital role in the same. The motive of bail is not to set free an accused but rather to set him free from custody either on his personal bond or after having the assurance given by his sureties that the accused would not escape from the law and they are bound to present him before the court. Observing the intensity of the crime, offenses are classified or rather divided as bailable and non-bailable offenses. Less serious crimes are bailable, whereas offenses of grave nature are non-bailable. Although in the case of bailable offenses full liberty is not cast upon the accused to get bail, and he may get bail, but if the court thinks fit to commit him to custody, then it can do so while giving justifiable reasons. The same is the case with non-bailable offenses where it is expressly shown that in such cases, bail cannot be granted, but it is not always the view. While deciding on an application for regular bail, the judge looks at the facts of the case and brainstorms the role and effect of the accused in the case. In many cases of serious nature, the accused is granted bail due to the lacuna performed by the investigation agency or any other factor.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Are criminal cases bailable in nature?
Criminal cases are of two types, i.e., bailable and non-bailable. In bailable cases, bail is granted as a matter of right, whereas in non-bailable bail is a matter of the court’s discretion.
Who are sureties?
Sureties are the individuals who assure the court in their capacity that the accused won’t escape the law after being released on bail.
How long is a bail valid?
In a criminal trial, regular and anticipatory bail is valid up to the conclusion of the trial. If it is an interim bail, then for the time being it is granted. If the court thinks it is fit to commit the accused to custody, it has full power to cancel the bail and commit the accused to custody.
How many times can bail be filed?
A bail application can be filed as many times as the applicant likes. There is no bar or limitation on the same.
How much is the bail amount?
Under Indian criminal law, it is expressly mentioned that the bail amount is set up by the court after looking at the financial condition of the accused and his family members. Thus, there is no specific amount for furnishing the bail.
How does a bail bond work?
In a criminal trial, there are two types of bail bond, a personal bond and a surety bond. As the name suggests, a personal bond is a bond that is and can be executed by the accused himself, whereas a surety bond is executed by the accused sureties. When the court accepts the bail application filed by the accused and agrees to set him free from custody, it sets an amount, for example, of Rs. twenty-five thousand for the bail bond. Then, upon setting the amount, either the accused himself or his sureties on his behalf submit any object or thing which is of the same value as the bond, such as a car, bike, or property papers. After executing the bail bond through the above-discussed procedure, the accused is set free on bail. However, it is important to note that the bail bond can never be executed in cash.
- Kelkars’s Criminal Procedure Code, Second Edition
- Dr. P.K. Singh’s A to Z of Criminal Trial.
- S.N. Misra’s The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. thirteenth Edition.
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: