Sanchayita Lahkar

The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad, Single Bench of Justice Sachin S. Deshmukh held that extending judicial custody beyond the statutory 60-day limit under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, without giving the accused a hearing or issuing a reasoned order, violates the law and the constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 21. The Court quashed the Sessions Court’s order refusing default bail and directed the release of the accused, noting that the charge sheet was not filed within the prescribed period in a case involving alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999.

The petition arose from a criminal case registered at Shrigonda Police Station against two accused for alleged offences under Sections 316(2), 318(2), and 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. The accused were arrested on July 7, 2025, and remanded to custody. Under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the investigating agency was required to file the charge sheet within 60 days, i.e., by September 5, 2025. No charge sheet was filed within this period. Instead, the Investigating Officer moved an application invoking Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita to include additional offences, on which the Magistrate merely recorded the remark “seen” without passing a reasoned order extending the period of custody.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Armed Forces Tribunal’s Power To Modify Court-Martial Conviction And Impose Compulsory Retirement

The accused thereafter sought default bail on the ground that the statutory period for filing the charge sheet had expired. The Sessions Court rejected the request, holding that invoking Section 316(5) automatically extended the permissible period for filing the charge sheet to 90 days, as the added offence carried imprisonment for life. The accused then approached the High Court contending that the extension of remand without a speaking order violated their right under Section 187(3) of the BNSS and Article 21 of the Constitution. The State opposed the plea, asserting that the Magistrate’s endorsement amounted to approval of the extension. The High Court examined these submissions to determine the legality of continued custody beyond 60 days.

Justice Deshmukh recorded that “the right to claim the default bail is premised on the anvil of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” The Court held that “the non-compliance on the part of the Investigating Officer with the mandate of Section 187 of BNSS cannot be permitted,” adding that “the accused has every right to know the allegations that are subsequently added against him and equally the Court is under obligation to hear the accused.”

The Court stated that judicial remand or police custody is not a mere procedural formality. “In the event the Investigating Officer discovers additional material constituting new or additional offences, it is incumbent upon the Officer to issue notice to the accused before presenting the fresh remand application,” the judgment recorded. Justice Deshmukh further held that “the extension of remand, predominantly after invoking new offences, is not an empty formality and must be undertaken in strict compliance with procedural and statutory requirements.”

The Court observed: “It was obligatory upon the Court to render a speaking and reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the prosecution vis-à-vis the accused.” The learned Judge noted that the APP fairly conceded that such an exercise was not undertaken in this case.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Abhilash Lal (2020) 3 SCC 2341, the Court stated that “if statute prescribes that a particular act must be performed in a specific manner and not in any other way, deviation from the statutory procedure would render such act null and void.” Justice Deshmukh clarified that Section 187(3) of the BNSS is mandatory in nature and that any departure from its mandate “has the effect of impairing the constitutional right of liberty of an individual.”

The judgment further recorded: “The provisions of Chapter XIII of the BNSS are mandatory at every stage after effecting arrest. Essentially, they are controlled and regulated by the statutory regime on the touchstone of Article 21, therefore, same ought to be complied with full rigors.” The Court held that “any departure results into infraction of the constitutional right, thereby creating an indefeasible right of the petitioners to claim default bail.”

Justice Deshmukh cited the Division Bench decision in Rajkumar Bhagchand Jain v. Union of India (MANU/MH/3290/2017), which held that detention beyond the prescribed period without filing a charge sheet is illegal and violative of the right to life and liberty under Article 21. The judgment noted that “the detention beyond the period of 60 days is in violation of Section 187(3) of the BNSS,” and that any such detention “cannot be sustained as it is violative of the right to life and liberty.”

The Court concluded that since the charge sheet had not been filed within 60 days from the first remand, “the Magistrate seizes its power to extend the remand beyond the prescribed period for filing the charge sheet.” The petitioners, therefore, were entitled to be released on default bail, which is an indefeasible right that “cannot be infringed in any eventuality.”

Also Read: Bombay High Court Upholds Western Coalfields’ Entry Ban on Ex-Employee | No Unrestricted Right for Citizens to Access Public Offices

Justice Deshmukh directed that “the criminal writ petition is allowed.” The judgment declared that “the order dated 09.09.2025 rendered in Default Bail Application in Crime No. 673 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrigonda, thereby rejecting the application presented by the petitioners seeking default bail, stands quashed and set aside and the application of petitioners is hereby allowed.”

“The petitioners shall be enlarged on default bail forthwith, subject to furnishing bail bonds or surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, in case the petitioners are not required in any other offence pending against them. “Conscious of its obligation to protect and safeguard the right to life and liberty of individuals emanating from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rahul R. Karpe, Advocate, assisted by Mr. S. R. Nikat
For the Respondent-State: Mr. S. M. Ganachari, Assistant Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Ranganth Tulshiram Galande and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AUG:28400
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 1299 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sachin S. Deshmukh