Telangana High Court: Once Conditions U/S 187(3) BNSS Satisfied, Discretion Has No Role & Court Bound To Uphold Legislative Mandate Protecting Personal Liberty

The Telangana High Court held that once the conditions under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) are satisfied, discretion has no role, and the Court is bound to uphold the legislative mandate protecting personal liberty.

The Court was hearing a Criminal Revision Case filed by an accused seeking reliefs related to the pending crimes against him.

A Single Bench of Justice N. Tukaramji observed, “Counting from these dates up to the filing of the bail applications, the petitioner had been in custody for 95, 93, 91, 89, and 81 days, respectively. In Crime No. 102 of 2025, the statutory period of 90 days had clearly expired without the filing of a charge sheet, by the date of the impugned order. Accordingly, the trial Court ought to have granted statutory bail, and its refusal to do so constitute an error apparent on the face of record. Once the conditions under Section 187(3) BNSS are satisfied, discretion has no role, and the Court is bound to uphold the legislative mandate protecting personal liberty.”

The Bench reiterated that the right to statutory or default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) i.e., now Section 187(3) of the BNSS, is an indefeasible right accruing to the accused upon the expiry of the prescribed period of detention, if the charge sheet has not been filed.

“The computation of such period must necessarily commence from the date of the first remand or the initial custody, and not from any subsequent or artificially regularized date of arrest”, it added.

Senior Advocate Nagamuthu appeared for the Petitioner/Accused, while Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) M. Ramachandra Rao appeared for the Respondent/State.

Facts of the Case

The Revision Petitioner, who was the accused in crimes related to the offences under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), had filed the Petitions under Section 187(3) of the BNSS seeking default bail. The Trial Court had dismissed his Bail Applications, observing that the statutory period for filing the charge sheet had not yet expired and that the authority relied upon by the accused was factually distinguishable. Being aggrieved, he was before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, remarked, “The record clearly indicates that the petitioner was already in judicial custody as of 27.07.2025, and that the subsequent offences stem from the same series of transactions/chain of events. Consequently, as the petitioner was in the custody by the date of registration of First Information Reports (FIRs), it was incumbent upon the investigating authorities to show the arrest and remand of the petitioner in all the connected cases from the respective dates of registration of the FIRs. Their omission to do so not only reflects a lack of due diligence and non-application of mind but also runs contrary to the settled position of law governing computation of the statutory period for the purpose of default bail.”

The Court noted that the failure of the accused to inform the Magistrate regarding the pendency of other connected cases cannot be construed as acquiescence or waiver of the statutory right and such omission does not clear the investigating agency or the Magistrate of their duty to correctly account for the remand period in accordance with law.

“The responsibility to ensure proper computation of custody lies squarely upon the prosecution and the Court concerned. … Accordingly, the learned Trial Court erred in not treating the date of registration of the first FIR as the relevant date for the purpose of computing the statutory period under Section 187(3) of the BNSS. The approach adopted defeats the very object of the statutory safeguard envisaged under the provision, which is to prevent arbitrary or prolonged detention without completion of investigation”, it said.

The Court was of the view that the prosecution’s contention that the statutory period must be computed from the date of regularization of arrest in each case is untenable and the Trial Court, therefore, erred in not considering the date of the First Information Report (FIR) as the relevant date for computing the statutory period under Section 187(3) of the BNSS.

“In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to statutory (default) bail in all the crimes under revision”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Case and granted bail to the accused on executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties for the like sum in each crime to the satisfaction of the XII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Cause Title- Dr. Athaluri @ Pachipala Namratha v. The State of Telangana (Case Number: Criminal Revision Case No. 849 of 2025)

Click here to read/download the Judgment