Temporary Or Interim Bail Period Should Not Be Computed For Reckoning Period For Statutory Bail: Kerala High Court

The High Court was considering a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, by the accused booked under Sections 22(c), 8(c), and 27(a) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

The Single Bench of Justice K.Babu stated, “What matters for statutory bail is detention, as provided in the statutory provisions, whether it is in one spell or in two spells. An accused person is entitled to be released on statutory bail by adding the truncated periods of detention suffered by him. I have no doubt in concluding that the period during which the accused person was released on temporary/interim bail should not be computed for the purpose of reckoning the period for statutory bail, as only the actual period of detention undergone by the accused need be counted for. Therefore, the necessary conclusion is that the petitioner is not entitled to statutory bail.”

Advocate M.G. Sreejith represented the Petitioner, while Public Prosecutor G. Sudheer represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner was arrested on February 18, 2025 and was granted interim bail on May 24, 2025, on medical grounds. He remained on interim bail till September 9, 2025. The petitioner sought statutory bail, contending that the period during which he was granted interim bail should also be treated as custody, as he had not enjoyed the benefit of absolute liberty.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that as per sub-section (3) of Section 187, no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this sub-section for a total period exceeding ninety days or sixty days, depending upon the offences alleged, for investigation. If the investigation is not completed within the above-referred statutory period, the accused person shall be released on bail, if he is prepared to and does furnish bail. It further stated that the period referred to above may extend up to 180 days or 90 days in respect of persons accused of offences punishable under Section 19 or 24 or 27A or for offences involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. The prohibition, beyond the statutory period, is for the detention of the accused persons.

On the issue of broken periods of detention, the Bench referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Gautam Navlakha v. NIA (2022) wherein it has been held that broken periods of custody can be counted whether the custody is suffered by the order of the Magistrate or superior courts, if investigation remains incomplete after the custody, whether continuous or broken periods pieced together reaches the requisite period; default bail becomes the right of the detained person.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioner remained in detention at the first instance from February 18, 2025 till May 24, 2025 (96 days), and at the second instance from September 9, 2025, to October 22, 2025 (44 days). “In view of the declaration of law by the Supreme Court, the broken periods could be taken together to appreciate the claim of statutory bail”, it added.

The Bench was of the view that only the actual period of detention undergone by the accused needs to be counted for the purpose of reckoning the period for statutory bail. Thus, the Bench dismissed the application.

Cause Title: Fisal PJ v. State Of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:79121)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates M.G. Sreejith, Vidyajith M., Swapnalekha K.T., Anjana A.

Respondent:- Public Prosecutor G. Sudheer

Click here to read/download Order