Bail application format under BNSS, with draft

Search for a bail application format under the BNSS and you will find two kinds of page: long articles that explain the format without ever showing it, and downloadable templates still headed "APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 437 CrPC", a provision repealed on 1 July 2024. The second kind is still being downloaded and, one assumes, filed. A registry will rarely reject an application for a stale heading. It does not help the applicant either.

This piece does the other thing. It settles which provision you are under, sets out the grounds that a Sessions Judge actually listens to, states the current Supreme Court position on arrest, and then gives you a complete application to copy. Nothing is gated.

First, the numbering

The numbers moved in a way that is actively misleading, so this comes before anything else.

For decades "a 482 petition" meant the High Court's inherent powers, usually a quashing petition. Under the BNSS, Section 482 is anticipatory bail. Inherent powers are now Section 528. And BNSS 438, where anticipatory bail used to sit in the old numbering, is the revision-records provision that was CrPC 397.

Name the code every time. "Section 482 BNSS" and "Section 482 CrPC" are both clear; "Section 482" on its own no longer is. The full set of pairs a criminal practice runs into, with the other traps, is in our IPC to BNS and CrPC to BNSS map.

One reassurance. The BPRD correspondence table records Section 482 BNSS against CrPC 438 as "No change". The provision was carried across without substantive alteration (the internal cross-references were renumbered, nothing more), so the anticipatory-bail jurisprudence built under the old number continues to apply.

The current position on arrest

The authority you want is Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2026 INSC 115, also reported as 2026 SCC OnLine SC 162, decided on 15 January 2026 by Sundresh and Kotiswar Singh JJ. On notice under Section 35(3) BNSS, the provision that was CrPC 41A, the Court held:

"A notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 to an accused or any individual concerned, qua offences punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, is the rule."

and, on arrest itself:

"An arrest by a police officer is a mere statutory discretion which facilitates him to conduct proper investigation … and, therefore, shall not be termed as mandatory."

The practical consequence is direct. Where the offence is punishable with up to seven years and the police arrested without first issuing notice under Section 35(3), that is a ground, and it should be pleaded as one, with the date the notice was or was not served, not as a general submission about the law.

Two related provisions are worth having to hand. Section 35(7) BNSS bars arrest without the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police where the offence is punishable with less than three years and the person is infirm or above sixty. And Section 479 BNSS, which replaced CrPC 436A, requires release on bail once an undertrial has been detained for half the maximum sentence for the offence, or on bond at one-third for a first-time offender; sub-section (3) puts the jail Superintendent under a duty to move the court in writing once either threshold is reached. Neither applies where death or life imprisonment is a prescribed punishment, and sub-section (2) withholds the benefit where multiple cases are pending. The Gazette text of the BNSS is worth opening before pleading any of this; the aggregated versions circulating online differ in detail.

The grounds that carry weight

A bail application is not improved by length. Four or five grounds pleaded with dates and particulars will do more than fifteen recited in the abstract. The questions a Sessions Judge puts first are usually the same three: how many days in custody, is the charge-sheet filed, and what are the antecedents. Answer them in the application before they are asked.

Nature of the accusation and the sentence exposure. State the maximum punishment for the offence charged. If it is seven years or less, that engages Satender Kumar Antil directly.

No notice under Section 35(3). If the offence is within the seven-year bracket and no notice was issued before arrest, plead the omission with dates.

Custody already undergone. Give the date of arrest and the days in custody as at the date of the application. "A considerable period" is not a number.

Investigation complete or effectively complete. If the charge-sheet is filed, custodial interrogation serves no further purpose; say so with the date of filing. If recovery is complete, say what was recovered and when.

Parity. If a co-accused on the same or a worse footing has been released, give the name, the order date and the court. Parity pleaded with particulars is one of the strongest grounds available. Pleaded vaguely it is worth nothing, and the Public Prosecutor will say the cases are distinguishable before you have finished the sentence.

Roots in the community and absence of flight risk. Residence, family, occupation, length of stay at the address.

Antecedents. If the applicant has none, say so positively.

Health, age, or the position of dependants, where applicable; and where Section 35(7) is engaged, plead that too.

What to leave out: argument on the merits of the prosecution case. A bail court is not trying the matter, and a lengthy attack on the evidence invites the response that these are matters for trial.

The application

A complete regular bail application under Section 480 BNSS, drafted for a Sessions Court. Replace the bracketed fields; delete grounds that do not apply rather than padding them.

        IN THE COURT OF THE LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE
                    AT ______________

              Bail Application No. ______ of 20____

              (Arising out of FIR No. ______ of 20____)

IN THE MATTER OF:

[Full name of the applicant], aged about ____ years,
S/o, D/o, W/o [____________],
R/o [complete residential address]                    ... APPLICANT
                                                        (ACCUSED)

                          VERSUS

State of [____________]
through the Station House Officer,
Police Station [____________]                         ... RESPONDENT

FIR No.        : ______ of 20____
Police Station : ______________
District       : ______________
Under Sections : ______ of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
                 [and ______ of ______ Act, if applicable]
Date of arrest : ______________

    APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 480 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK
    SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 FOR GRANT OF REGULAR BAIL TO THE
                        APPLICANT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1.  That the applicant is a law-abiding citizen of India,
    residing at the address given in the cause title, and is
    engaged as [occupation] at [place of work].

2.  That the applicant has been arrayed as an accused in the
    above-mentioned FIR registered at Police Station
    ______________ on ______ for offences punishable under
    Section(s) ______ of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.  That the applicant was arrested on ______ and has since been
    in judicial custody. As on the date of this application, the
    applicant has undergone ______ days of custody.

4.  That the case of the prosecution, as set out in the FIR, is
    briefly that [state the prosecution case in two or three
    sentences, neutrally and without argument].

5.  That the applicant is innocent of the offences alleged and
    has been falsely implicated in the present case.

    GROUNDS

6.  That the offence(s) alleged against the applicant is/are
    punishable with imprisonment up to ______ years. [Where the
    maximum is seven years or less, add:] The Hon'ble Supreme
    Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2026 INSC 115 : 2026
    SCC OnLine SC 162, decided on 15.01.2026, has held that for
    offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, the
    issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya
    Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is the rule, and that arrest
    is a matter of statutory discretion and not mandatory.

7.  That no notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
    Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was served upon the applicant at any
    time prior to his/her arrest, notwithstanding that the
    offence alleged falls within the said category. [Delete if
    inapplicable.]

8.  That the investigation in the present matter is complete /
    the charge-sheet has been filed on ______, and no purpose
    would be served by the continued custodial detention of the
    applicant. Nothing further remains to be recovered from or
    discovered through the applicant.

9.  That the applicant has clean antecedents and has never
    previously been convicted of, or involved in, any offence.
    [Or state the antecedents accurately — do not conceal them.]

10. That the co-accused [name], who is similarly placed and
    against whom the allegations are identical / graver, has
    already been enlarged on bail by the order of this Hon'ble
    Court / the Court of ______ dated ______ in Bail Application
    No. ______ of 20____. The applicant seeks parity therewith.
    [Delete if inapplicable.]

11. That the applicant is a permanent resident of the address
    stated in the cause title, where he/she has resided for the
    last ______ years together with his/her family, and has deep
    roots in the community. There is no likelihood whatsoever of
    the applicant absconding or fleeing from justice.

12. That the applicant undertakes to fully co-operate with the
    investigation, to attend the court on each and every date of
    hearing, and to abide by any and all conditions that this
    Hon'ble Court may deem fit to impose.

13. That the applicant shall neither tamper with the evidence nor
    influence, threaten or contact any of the prosecution
    witnesses in any manner whatsoever.

14. That the applicant is prepared to furnish adequate surety and
    a personal bond to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court.

15. That no other bail application filed on behalf of the
    applicant in respect of the present FIR is pending before, or
    has been decided by, this Hon'ble Court or any other court,
    including the Hon'ble High Court.
    [If an earlier application was rejected, disclose it: give
    the number, the court, the date of the order, and state what
    has changed since.]

    PRAYER

    It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to:

    (a) enlarge the applicant on regular bail in connection with
        FIR No. ______ of 20____ registered at Police Station
        ______________, under Section 480 of the Bharatiya
        Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on such terms and
        conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;
        and

    (b) pass such other and further order or orders as this
        Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
        circumstances of the case.

    AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPLICANT AS IN DUTY BOUND
    SHALL EVER PRAY.

Place: ______________
Date : ______________

                                  [Signature]
                                  APPLICANT
                                  Through

                                  [Signature]
                                  [Name], Advocate
                                  Counsel for the Applicant
                                  Enrolment No.: __________
                                  [Address, telephone, email]


                        VERIFICATION

I, [name], S/o, D/o, W/o [______], aged about ____ years,
R/o [address], the applicant above-named, do hereby verify that
the contents of paragraphs 1 to ____ of the above application are
true to my personal knowledge and the contents of paragraphs ____
to ____ are believed to be true on the basis of legal advice
received, and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Verified at ______________ on this ____ day of ____________ 20____.

                                  [Signature]
                                  APPLICANT / DEPONENT

Notes on using it

The verification must distinguish knowledge from belief. This is not style. The convention in Indian pleadings comes from Order VI Rule 15(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires the person verifying to specify, by reference to the numbered paragraphs, what is verified of his own knowledge and what upon information received and believed to be true. It is also why the paragraphs are numbered consecutively in the first place: Order VI Rule 2(2) makes that a requirement, not a habit. A bail application is not a CPC pleading, but registries expect the form, and a verification that lumps everything together as "true to my knowledge" invites the question of how the applicant personally knows what his co-accused's order says.

Do not cite an authority you have not read. Since Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., 2026 INSC 668, decided on 2 July 2026, the Supreme Court's stated position is that citing a judgment without verification is misconduct on the part of an advocate. The one citation in this draft is given with its date, bench and two reported citations so that you can open it before you file it. We have written separately about what Indian courts have done about fabricated citations.

Formatting: check your court

A template that complies in Delhi will not comply in Bombay.

The Supreme Court's requirement comes from a registry circular of 5 March 2020, in force from 1 April 2020, not from the Supreme Court Rules 2013: Order VIII of those Rules still speaks of double-line spacing on one side of the paper and names no font, and has never been amended to match. Delhi's specifications, in Practice Direction No. 90/Rules/DHC of 10 October 2022, in force from 1 November 2022, are the Supreme Court's to the letter, and apply to the District Courts of Delhi as well as the High Court. Bombay's circular of 14 July 2021 (No. Rule/E1604/2021), which applies across the courts of Maharashtra and Goa, is the outlier on font and margins; its margins are stated as inner and outer, that is, relative to the binding.

Check your own court's current rules. These change by practice direction, and practice directions are not always written back into the rules they override.

What Synapse does with this

Look at the draft again and count the facts in it: the FIR number and date, the sections charged, the maximum sentence, the date of arrest, the days in custody as of today, the charge-sheet date, the co-accused's order and its date. All of it already exists in the file. The labour is transcription and arithmetic, and the errors are transcription errors and arithmetic errors.

Synapse takes those facts off the consultation recording and the uploaded FIR as they arrive and holds them on the case timeline, so the custody period is computed on the day of filing rather than recalled, and the sections come from an index that carries both the BNS and the IPC numbering. When the application is drafted from the case facts, each authority in it has been retrieved from the corpus before the sentence was written and checked against IndianKanoon by name and citation number; one that cannot be matched is flagged, not passed off as authority.

The draft above is the standard case. The reason to use a tool is the matter that is not standard, and the twelve others on your desk that week.

---

Statutory references are to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (Act 46 of 2023) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (Act 45 of 2023), both in force from 1 July 2024 under notifications S.O. 848(E) and S.O. 850(E) dated 23 February 2024. Correspondence between the old and new provisions is taken from the Bureau of Police Research and Development's correspondence tables. The provisions, judgments and circulars were checked against the sources linked in the text on 28 September 2026. This article is general information about drafting practice, not legal advice, and does not create an advocate–client relationship. The draft is a starting point for an advocate to settle on the facts of the matter; it is not a substitute for professional judgment. Verify every provision and every authority against the bare act and the judgment before filing.