Right To Statutory Bail Becomes Indefeasible Once 90-Day Statutory Period Lapses Without Filing Of Final Report: Telangana High Court Grants Bail To Doctor

The High Court was considering a Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), assailing the order passed in a criminal case under Sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(4), and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), by the XII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

The Single Bench of Justice N. Tukaramji held, “Applying this principle, the statutory period of 90 days for completion of investigation and filing of a final report under section 187(3) BNSS must be computed from the date of registration of the present FlR (03.08.2025). By the date of filing of the present petition and even by the date of the impugned return endorsement, the said 90-day period had undoubtedly expired, and no charge sheet had been filed.”

The Bench also affirmed, “As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [(2021) 2 SCC 485], once the statutory period lapses without the filing of a final report, the right to statutory bail becomes indefeasible and cannot be defeated by procedural lapses or administrative delays. Such right forms part of the fundamental guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Advocate Yemmiganur Soma Srinath Reddy represented the Petitioner, while the Public Prosecutor represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The accused was booked in nine different crimes, and the impugned petition was filed under Section 187(3) of the BNSS, seeking statutory (default) bail. The same was returned by the Magistrate with an office endorsement.

Arguments

Referring to a common order of the High Court wherin it was held that the statutory period for the purpose of default bail must be reckoned from the date of registration of the First lnformation Report (FlR), where the accused was already in custody in related crimes arising from the same set of facts, the Petitioner submitted that the said principle directly applied to the present revision, since the 90-day statutory period had elapsed without the filing of a final report. It was argued that in such circumstances, the petitioner had acquired the right to statutory bail under Section 1 87(3) of the BNSS. Accordingly, it was prayed that the revision be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

The Additional Public Prosecutor conceded that 90 days had elapsed by the date of the petition and the order of return endorsement. It was, thus, the case of the State that appropriate orders be passed in accordance with the law.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the petitioner was accused of a series of crimes revolving around surrogacy-related transactions, and many of these shared a common factual substratum. ln several connected matters, the petitioner had filed petitions seeking statutory bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS, which were disposed of by the Court through a common order wherein it was reiterated that the right to statutory or default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (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.

It was also held in the order that the 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 17(3) of the BNSS. “The above findings, grounded in authoritative precedent and sound reasoning, directly govern the facts of the present revision”, it held.

The Bench further noticed that the case in question was registered on August 3, 2025, by which time the petitioner was already in judicial custody in connection with other crimes. Applying the principle of the doctrine of deemed custody as propounded in Tupakula Appa Rao v. State of A.P. (2002) and reaffirmed in Viswanathan v. State of A.P. (2019), the Bench held that the petitioner’s custody in one case must be treated as custody in all factually interlinked crimes arising from the same police station and chain of transactions.

Considering that the 90-day statutory period for investigation had elapsed, the charge sheet had not been filed, and the petitioner was ready to furnish bail bonds and sureties, the Bench held that the petitioner was entitled to statutory/default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS. Finding that the Magistrate was in error in returning the petition instead of granting bail as a matter of right, the Bench allowed the Criminal Revision Case and allowed the petitioner to be enlarged on bail, subject to execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs 25,000.

Cause Title: Dr. Athaluri @ Pachipala Namratha v. The State of Telangana (Criminal Revision Case No. 869 of 2025)

Click here to read/download Order