Bar Council of India Notice

Disclaimer & Confirmation

As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, an advocate is not permitted to solicit work or advertise. By clicking “I Agree” below, you acknowledge and confirm that:

you are seeking information about Advocate Manish Jha of your own accord and for your own information and use; there has been no advertisement, personal communication, solicitation, invitation or inducement of any kind whatsoever from Advocate Manish Jha or the chamber to solicit any work through this website; the information made available here is provided only on your specific request; and no information on this website is to be construed as legal advice, nor does its use create any advocate-client relationship.

⚖  E-397, 4th Floor, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi – 110027 Mon–Sat  ·  +91 98738 50301  ·  legal@advocatemanishjha.com
Advocate Manish Jha Criminal · Civil · Family Law — New Delhi ☎  Consult the Chamber
Home › Undertrial Release (S. 479)
Explainer · Bail Practice

Release of Undertrials under Section 479 BNSS: The Half and One-Third Rules

Formerly Section 436A CrPC, Section 479 BNSS caps how long an undertrial can be kept in custody — and its new first-proviso relaxation for first-time offenders is one of the most consequential changes the Sanhita made to bail law.

Bail jurisprudence mostly asks whether an accused deserves liberty. Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 asks a different question: how long can the State keep an undertrial in prison at all? The provision — successor to Section 436A of the CrPC, introduced in 2005 — entitles a person who has undergone detention for up to one half of the maximum imprisonment specified for the offence to be released on bail, and its first proviso goes further for first-time offenders, easing the threshold to one third. This explainer sets out the entitlement, its exclusions, and how it is worked in Delhi courts and jails.

The idea behind the provision

Trials take time; the presumption of innocence does not expire while they do. Section 479 addresses the undertrial who, without ever being convicted, has already served a substantial portion of the very sentence the offence carries at its maximum. At that point the balance between the State's interest in custody and the individual's liberty tilts decisively, and the statute converts what would otherwise be a discretionary bail plea into a near-entitlement measured by the calendar.

The thresholds

Category of undertrialDetention thresholdMode of release
General undertrial (offence not punishable with death or life imprisonment)One half of the maximum imprisonment specified for the offenceBail
First-time offender (never previously convicted of any offence)One third of the maximum imprisonment specified for the offenceBond
Any undertrial, any offence within the sectionThe maximum period of imprisonment provided for the offenceDetention beyond this is prohibited — sub-section (2)

The computation runs on the period of detention undergone in that case. Time spent on bail is excluded; custody in unrelated cases is not counted for the case at hand. Where an accused faces trial for several offences in one case, the offence carrying the highest maximum governs the computation.

What Section 479 changed from Section 436A CrPC

Section 436A CrPC

Half-the-maximum rule for all eligible undertrials; offences punishable with death excluded; court could extend detention for recorded reasons up to the maximum sentence.

Section 479 BNSS

Retains the half rule and the outer prohibition, but adds the one-third threshold for first-time offenders released on bond, excludes offences punishable with life imprisonment as well as death, restricts the benefit where multiple cases are pending, and casts an express duty on jail superintendents to move the court.

Procedure in practice

1. Custody certificate. Obtain the certificate from the jail recording the exact period of detention in the case — the arithmetic foundation of the application.
2. Identify the maximum sentence. Fix the gravest offence charged and its maximum imprisonment under the BNS or the special statute; compute the one-half and one-third dates.
3. Application to the trial court. Move the court seized of the case, disclosing antecedents and any other pending cases candidly. The Public Prosecutor is heard.
4. Order. Release on bail or bond follows unless the court, for reasons recorded in writing, orders continued detention — an exception, not the norm, and one that itself cannot breach the outer limit in sub-section (2).

Practice note: The first-time offender proviso turns on the absence of any previous conviction — not the absence of previous cases. Verified antecedents from the police reply often become the battlefield; counsel should be ready with acquittal or discharge orders where old cases appear in the dossier. Conversely, the multiple-case restriction means an accused with another pending matter should compute eligibility conservatively and address the point head-on rather than leave it to the prosecutor.

Relationship with other bail provisions

Section 479 operates alongside, not instead of, the ordinary bail framework. An undertrial short of the statutory threshold can still press delay and long incarceration as grounds under Section 480 or Section 483 BNSS — prolonged custody with no early end to trial has always weighed in favour of bail, particularly where the delay is not attributable to the accused. Section 479 is the statutory floor beneath that jurisprudence: it identifies the point at which continued detention needs written justification, and the further point at which it becomes flatly illegal. Special statutes with their own bail regimes present interplay questions; the express exclusions in Section 479 itself — death and life-imprisonment offences, multiple pending cases — are, however, the first filters in every computation.

The takeaway

Section 479 BNSS is bail law reduced to arithmetic, and arithmetic is checkable. For every client in judicial custody, the file should carry three dates: the one-third date, the half date, and the maximum-sentence date. The jail superintendent bears a statutory duty, but diligence belongs to the defence — an application moved the week a threshold crosses, supported by a clean custody certificate and candid antecedents, is among the most effective liberty applications the Sanhita provides.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is covered by Section 479 BNSS?

An undertrial — a person detained during investigation, inquiry or trial — who has undergone detention up to one half of the maximum imprisonment specified for the offence. A first-time offender, defined as one never previously convicted of any offence, qualifies on undergoing one third of that maximum. Offences punishable with death or life imprisonment are outside the provision.

Is release under Section 479 automatic?

No, but it is close to an entitlement. The court orders release on bail — for the first-time offender, on bond — once the threshold is crossed. The section permits the court, for reasons recorded in writing and after hearing the Public Prosecutor, to continue detention or extend the period, and detention beyond the maximum sentence itself is flatly prohibited by sub-section (2) — no discretion survives that outer wall.

What if the accused faces several cases?

Sub-section (2), through its scheme, and the settled reading of the provision deny the benefit where multiple cases or investigations are pending against the person in more than one offence; the computation also becomes case-specific. Accurate custody certificates and a candid disclosure of other cases are therefore essential to any application.

Whose duty is it to move the application?

Sub-section (3) places a statutory duty on the Superintendent of the jail to make an application to the court when an undertrial completes the one-half or one-third period, but the accused need not wait: counsel can and should compute the period from the custody certificate and move the trial court directly.

Note: This article is general information about the law and is not legal advice. It does not create an advocate-client relationship. The position stated is as at 24 August 2026 and may have changed since. Readers should verify any provision or decision referred to against the official text and seek advice on their own circumstances.