Judicial Pronouncement: Telangana HC Reinforces Statutory Bail as a Right, Not Discretion, Post 90 Days
(Judicial Quest News Network)
Hyderabad, Dec 1 — In a significant pronouncement reinforcing the primacy of personal liberty, the Telangana High Court has held that once the conditions under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 are satisfied, judicial discretion has no role and the court is bound to uphold the legislative mandate.
“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”
A single‑judge bench of Justice N. Tukaramji, while hearing a Criminal Revision Case, reiterated that the right to statutory or default bail—earlier enshrined in Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and now codified under Section 187(3) of the BNSS—is an indefeasible right accruing to the accused upon expiry of the prescribed period of detention if the final report 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”
The accused had sought default bail under Section 187(3), but the trial court dismissed his applications, holding that the statutory period had not expired. Aggrieved, he approached the High Court. Justice Tukaramji observed that the failure of the accused to inform the Magistrate about connected cases could not be construed as waiver of the statutory right, nor did such omission absolve the investigating agency or the Magistrate of their duty to correctly compute the remand period.
“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.”
Rejecting the prosecution’s contention that the statutory period must be reckoned from the date of regularization of arrest in each case, the Court clarified that the relevant date for computation is the date of the First Information Report (FIR). The trial court, it held, erred in overlooking this mandate.
“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.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revision, granting bail to the accused on execution of a personal bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties of like sum in each crime, to the satisfaction of the XII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Y. Soma Srinath Reddy before the Telangana High Court.
