Police Investigation Must Show Arrest And Remand In Each Connected FIR; Telangana High Court Grants Bail To Doctor In Surrogacy Offences Case
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Telangana Single Bench of Justice N. Tukaramji granted statutory bail to a doctor accused in multiple surrogacy-related offences, holding that when an accused is already in judicial custody in the first of several connected cases, the investigating agency must record arrest and remand in each subsequent case from the respective dates of FIR registration. The Court accepted the contention that these crimes arise from the same or substantially similar transactions and concluded that, as the statutory period for filing charge sheets had expired on that basis, the accused was entitled to default bail in all pending crimes.
The petitioner, a medical practitioner, was implicated in multiple crimes registered by the Gopalapuram Police Station, Hyderabad, relating to alleged fraudulent surrogacy arrangements. The offences were registered under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. The petitioner was taken into custody on 27 July 2025 in one of the connected crimes.
The petitioner filed applications under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking statutory bail on the ground that the prescribed period for filing charge sheets had expired. It was contended that custody in one case should be treated as deemed custody in other related crimes, as all arose from similar transactions. Reliance was placed on earlier decisions of the High Court holding that custody in one case extends to connected cases registered by the same police station.
The prosecution opposed the petitions, arguing that each crime involved distinct victims and contractual arrangements, requiring separate investigation. It was submitted that remand dates must be reckoned independently, and that the petitioner had not sought consolidation before the Magistrate. The prosecution further relied on precedent distinguishing cases involving separate transactions.
Justice N. Tukaramji recorded: “The petitioner seeks statutory (default) bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS, which is pari materia with Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.” The Court stated: “The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of judgments, has held that the right to statutory bail is substantive, indefeasible, and arises automatically upon expiry of the statutory period prescribed for completion of investigation, where the investigating agency fails to file the charge sheet within such time.”
It was observed: “Once the conditions under Section 187(3) BNSS / Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. are satisfied, the Court is bound to grant bail, as the provision embodies a legislative safeguard against prolonged pre-trial detention.” The Court noted: “It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 27.07.2025. The charge sheets in the present crimes have not yet been filed, and the investigation is still pending.”
Justice Tukaramji referred to precedent: “As observed by this Court in Tupakula Appa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, such custody may extend by implication to other connected crimes arising out of the same police station and set of facts.” The Court recorded: “If the omission is attributable to the negligence of the authorities, the custody in one case shall be deemed custody in all connected cases, thereby protecting the liberty of the accused.”
It was further stated: “In Viswanathan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it was clarified that even if the investigating agency failed to regularize the arrest formally, the accused is deemed to be in custody for the purpose of computing the statutory period.” On the prosecution’s reliance, the Court noted: “In Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the doctrine of deemed custody would not apply where the crimes arise from distinct transactions, are registered by different police stations, and necessitate separate investigations.”
Justice Tukaramji observed: “All the crimes herein were originally registered by the same police station, Gopalapuram Police Station, and even according to the prosecution, the petitioner’s first remand was effected by that police station.” The Court stated: “The petitioner was already in judicial custody as of 27.07.2025, and the subsequent offences stem from the same series of transactions/chain of events.”
It was recorded: “The responsibility to ensure proper computation of custody lies squarely upon the prosecution and the Court concerned.” Finally, the Court observed: “The trial Court erred in not considering the date of the first information report as the relevant date for computing the statutory period under Section 187(3) of the BNSS.”
Justice N. Tukaramji directed: “Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case Nos. 849 to 852 and 857 of 2025 are allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum in each crime to the satisfaction of the learned XII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad. The petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation or tamper with the evidence collected by the prosecution in any manner. The petitioner shall be available for interrogation and cooperate with the investigating officer as and when required by the investigating officer, in the related crimes.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. M. Ramachandra Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Dr. Athaluri @ Pachipala Namratha v. State of Telangana
Case Number: Criminal Revision Case Nos. 849, 850, 851, 852 & 857 of 2025
Bench: Justice N. Tukaramji
