While allowing the accused persons to be enlarged on default bail in a criminal case, the Bombay High Court has observed that the indefeasible right of the accused to claim the default bail on account of failure of the Investigating Officer to file a charge-sheet within a period of 60 days, is on the anvil of Article 21 of the Constitution and under any eventuality, gloss cannot be created on such fundamental right.

The petitioners approached the High Court, raising a challenge to the order rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the application presented by the petitioners seeking default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Sachin S. Deshmukh held, “Having heard the learned counsel for litigating sides, the right to claim the default bail is premised on the anvil of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Once the arrest is effected and the accused persons are produced before the concerned Magistrate for the purpose of remand, the computation period of 60 days in the wake of the offences with which initially the petitioners were charged, expire within 60 days in the light of provisions of Section 187 of BNSS.

“The objection raised by the learned APP that since the petitioners are claiming to be enlarged on bail, as such, the necessary application ought to be presented before the Court concerned, does not warrant any consideration in the light of the fact that indefeasible right of the petitioners to claim the default bail on account of failure of the Investigating Officer to file a charge-sheet within a period of 60 days, which is on the anvil of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and under any eventuality, gloss cannot be created on the fundamental rights of the petitioners. This Court is conscious of its obligation to protect and safeguard the right to life and liberty of individual emanating from Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be defeated under any eventuality”, it added.

Factual Background

The petitioners were booked in a criminal case registered under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act). The petitioners were arrested on July 7, 2025. On the ground that the charge-sheet ought to have been filed within 60 days, i.e. by September 5, 2025, as a mandate under Section 187(3) of the BNSS, the petitioners sought default bail before the Sessions Court. In the meantime, the Investigating Officer, submitted an application invoking Section 316(5) of the BNS. The concerned Court recorded the remark “seen” without passing a reasoned and speaking order extending further judicial remand.

The petitioners presented an application seeking relief of default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS contending that the investigation into the alleged offences necessarily ought to have been concluded within a period of 60 days from the date of first remand of the petitioners, which period eventually expired on September 5, 2025. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the request of the petitioners for default bail, holding that the invocation of Section 316(5) of the BNS was sufficient since the punishment prescribed for the added section included imprisonment for life. The Petitioners thus approached the High Court claiming that they have an indefeasible right to claim default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS, owing to failure on the part of the Investigating Officer to submit a charge-sheet within 60 days from the date of first remand of the accused / petitioner.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that the non-compliance on the part of the Investigating Officer with the mandate of Section 187 of BNSS cannot be permitted. “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”, it mentioned while also adding, “In unequivocal terms, the concerned Magistrate or the Court may extend judicial custody which essentially shall not exceed statuary prescribed 60 or 90 days period as prescrbed in Section 187 of the BNSS.”

The Bench was of the view that upon expiry of the aforesaid period, the entitlement of the accused persons to be released on default bail is an indefeasible right, if the charge-sheet has not been filed within the said period corresponding to Section 187(3) of the BNSS. “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, it is incumbent upon the Officer to issue notice to the accused before presenting the fresh remand application to the concerned Court”, it stated.

As per the Bench, when the Court extends the detention of the accused beyond the prescribed period under the law, it is obligatory upon the Court to render a speaking and reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing the prosecution vis-a-vis the accused / present petitioners. The Bench noted the APP’s submission that the concerned Magistrate had endorsed the application as was evident from the remark “seen”. Therefore, the same satisfied the requirement of Section 187 of BNSS.

“Admittedly, the provision of Section 187(3) of BNSS are mandatory in nature. Resultantly, any slightest departure with the statutory mandate has impact of impairing the constitutional right of liberty of an individual although facing the accusations”, it stated.

The Bench also mentioned, “Undoubtedly, in the present case, the charge-sheet is not filed within 60 days in the wake of registration of offences under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 318(4) read with 3(5) of the BNS and Section 3 of MPID Act. Resultantly, the Magistrate seizes its power to extend the remand beyond the prescribed period for filing the charge-sheet. Therefore, same entails the petitioners to claim the indefeasible right to claim default bail. Resultantly, accused persons are entitled to be released on bail, which is an indefeasible right and cannot be infringed in any eventuality.”

Thus, allowing the Petition, the Bench ordered the petitioners to be enlarged on default bail subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, in case, they were not required in any other offence.

Cause Title: Ranganth Tulshiram Galande v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:28400

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Rahul R. Karpe, S. R. Nikat

Respondent: Advocate S. M. Ganachari

Click here to read/download Order


Bombay High CourtJustice Sachin Deshmukh

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.