Bombay High Court: In the present petition, the accused persons challenged the Sessions Court’s order denying their default bail application. They argued that the Investigating Officer failed to file the chargesheet within the mandatory 60 day period under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) and that no reasoned order was passed to justify the extension of their judicial custody.
A Single Judge Bench of Sachin S. Deshmukh, J., while allowing the petition, held that when the Court extended the detention of the accused persons beyond the prescribed period under the law, it was obligatory for the Court to render a speaking and reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the prosecution vis-à-vis the accused persons. The Court further noted that, to invoke Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), it was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to seek an extension of time for filing the chargesheet.
Background:
The case arose from the arrest of the accused persons in connection with offences under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 318(4) read with 3(5) BNS, and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (‘MPID Act’). Consequently, the accused persons were taken into custody on 07-07-2025.
It was submitted that as per Section 187(3) BNSS, the chargesheet was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of first remand, i.e., by 05-09-2025. However, the Investigating Officer failed to submit the charge-sheet within this period, the accused persons applied for default bail before the Sessions Court.
In the meantime, the Investigating Officer submitted an application invoking Section 316(5) BNS, which was merely marked “seen” by the Court concerned. However, no reasoned or speaking order was passed to extend judicial remand, as mandated under Section 187(3) BNSS. Owing to non-compliance with the same, the accused persons sought default bail before the Sessions Court.
The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the default bail application, holding that the invocation of Section 316(5) BNS was sufficient to extend the chargesheet filing period to 90 days, as the added offence carried a punishment of life imprisonment. Resultantly, the Judge concluded that the accused persons were not entitled to default bail.
Aggrieved by this decision, the accused persons filed a petition contending that the failure to file the charge-sheet within 60 days and the absence of a reasoned order extending judicial remand violated their indefeasible right to default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS, owing to the failure on the part of the Investigating Officer to submit the chargesheet within a period of 60 days from the date of first remand of the accused persons.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the right to claim the default bail is premised on the anvil of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court emphasised that once the arrest is affected and the accused persons are produced before the Magistrate concerned for the purpose of remand, the computation period of 60 days in the wake of the offences with which initially the accused persons were charged, expire within 60 days in the light of provisions of Section 187 BNSS.
The Court highlighted that the non-compliance on the part of Investigating Officer with the mandate of Section 187 BNSS cannot be permitted, since the accused has every right to know the allegations those are subsequently added against him and equally the Court is under obligation to hear the accused.
The Court emphasised that equally, the judicial remand or police custody is not a mere formality. In the event, the Investigating Officer, during the course of judicial custody, discovers additional material constituting new or additional offences under the particular section, the Court held that it is incumbent upon the Officer to issue notice to the accused before presenting the fresh remand application to the Court concerned.
The Court observed that the procedure is rather mandatory in the wake of statutory regime to ensure that the accused is conferred with an opportunity to resist the request for further extension of judicial custody. The Court highlighted that particularly, in relation to the additional offences based on new material gathers during the investigation, such due procedure safeguards the rights of the accused and ensure judicial control over the detention of the custody of the accused persons.
The Court observed that resultantly, when the Court extended the detention of the accused persons beyond the prescribed period under the law, it was obligatory upon the Court to render a speaking and reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing the prosecution vis-a-vis the accused persons. When confronted with this position, the State fairly conceded that this exercise had not been undertaken while extending the period of the judicial remand of the present accused persons. However, it was submitted by the State that the Magistrate concerned had endorsed the application as was evident from the remark “seen”. Therefore, same satisfied the requirement of Section 187 BNSS.
The Court further noted that in order to invoke Section 316(5) BNS, it was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to seek an extension of time for filing the charge-sheet. While doing so, Investigating Officer was required to offer an adequate opportunity to the accused persons to contest such extension.
The Court emphasised that the provision of Section 187(3) BNSS were mandatory in nature and any slightest departure with the statutory mandate had impact of impairing the constitutional right of liberty of an individual although facing the accusations. The Court observed that the provisions of Chapter XIII BNSS were mandatory at every stage after effecting arrest. Further, the Court noted that same was predominantly controlled and regulated by the statutory regime on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution, therefore, same ought to be complied with full rigors. Any departure resulted into infraction of the constitutional right, thereby creating an indefeasible right of the accused persons to claim default bail.
The Court observed that in the present case, the charge-sheet was not filed within 60 days in the wake of registration of offences under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 318(4) read with 3(5) BNS and Section 3 of the MPID Act. The Court emphasised that the Magistrate seized its power to extend the remand beyond the prescribed period for filing the charge-sheet. Therefore, same entailed the accused persons to claim the indefeasible right to claim default bail, thereby the accused persons were entitled to be released on bail, which was an indefeasible right and could not be infringed in any eventuality.
The Court, therefore, allowed the petition and quashed the order of the Additional Sessions Judge that had rejected the accused persons’ default bail application. The Court further directed that the accused persons be released forthwith on default bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds or surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, provided they were not required in connection with any other pending offence.
[Ranganth Tulshiram Galande v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1299 of 2025, decided on 07-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Accused persons: Rahul R. Karpe a/w S. R. Nikat
For the Respondent: S. M. Ganachari
Buy Constitution of India HERE
