In the present case, the petitioner remained in detention at
the first instance from 18.02.2025 till 24.05.2025 (96 days), and at
the second instance from 09.09.2025 to 22.10.2025 (44 days). In
view of the declaration of law by the Supreme Court, the broken
periods could be taken together to appreciate the claim of statutory
bail. The question now arises is: “Could the period during which the petitioner remained in interim bail be counted for calculating the requisite period for statutory bail?”. {Para 9}
12. The learned Amicus Curiae has taken me to the various
decisions and the relevant statutory provisions. The learned
Amicus Curiae relaying on Amir Hassan Mir v. UT of J & K and
others, (Manu/JK/0206/2022), submitted that the petitioner could not be treated to be in detention or custody for the period he was released on temporary bail. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that only the actual custody undergone by the accused will be counted for computing the period for default bail. The learned Amicus Curiae, on going through the facts of the case, submitted that the petitioner has remained in detention only for 140 days. Therefore, he is not entitled to statutory bail.
13. What matters for statutory bail is detention, as provided in
the statutory provisions, whether it is in one spell or in two spells.
An accused person is entitled to be released on statutory bail by
adding the truncated periods of detention suffered by him. I have
no doubt in concluding that the period during which the accused
person was released on temporary/interim bail should not be
computed for the purpose of reckoning the period for statutory bail, as only the actual period of detention undergone by the accused need be counted for. Therefore, the necessary conclusion is that the petitioner is not entitled to statutory bail.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BAIL APPL. NO. 11634 OF 2025
FISAL PJ, Vs STATE OF KERALA
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
Citation: 2025:KER:79121
Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2025
This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
2. The petitioner, accused No.3 in Crime No.1068/2024 of
Angamaly Police Station, seeks statutory bail under Section 187 of
the BNSS read with sub-section (4) of Section 36A of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The offences
alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 22(c),
8(c) and 27(a) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 18.02.2025. At the first
instance, he remained in judicial custody till 24.05.2025. On
24.05.2025, he was granted interim bail on medical grounds. He
remained on interim bail till 09.09.2025. The learned counsel for
the petitioner seeks statutory bail, contending that the period
during which he was granted interim bail is also be treated as
custody as he had not enjoyed the benefit of absolute liberty.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Public Prosecutor and the learned Amicus Curiae.
5. The relevant statutory provision in the Cr.PC is Section 167
(2). The pari materia provision in the BNSS is Section 187 (3).
Section 187 (3) of the BNSS reads thus:
187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in
twenty-four hours.
(1) xxxxx.
(2) xxxx
(3) The Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused
person, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that
adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall
authorise the detention of the accused person in custody
under this sub-section for a total period exceeding-
(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an
offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or
imprisonment for a term of ten years or more;
(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any
other offence,
and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty
days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be
released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and
every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be
deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter
XXXV for the purposes of that Chapter.”
6. As per sub-section (3) of Section 187, no Magistrate shall
authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this
sub-section for a total period exceeding ninety days or sixty days
as the case may be, depending upon the offences alleged, for the
purpose of investigation. If the investigation is not completed
within the above referred statutory period, the accused person
shall be released on bail, if he is prepared to and does furnish bail.
The period referred to above may extend upto 180 days or 90 days
as the case may be, in respect of persons accused of offences
punishable under Section 19 or 24 or 27A or for offences involving
commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. The prohibition as
provided above, beyond the statutory period, is for the detention of
the accused persons.
7. The question whether continuous or broken periods pieced
together reaches the requisite period for the purpose of statutory
bail was considered by the Supreme Court in Gautam Navlakha v.
NIA, [(2022) 13 SCC 542]. In Gautam Navlakha, the Supreme Court
held that broken periods of custody can be counted whether the
custody is suffered by the order of the Magistrate or superior
courts, if investigation remains incomplete after the custody,
whether continuous or broken periods pieced together reaches the
requisite period; default bail becomes the right of the detained
person.
8. In Sabu v. CBI [2020 (3) KLT 710], this Court also
considered the same question and held that broken periods of
custody could be considered for compulsive bail under proviso (a)
(i) of sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr.PC.
9. In the present case, the petitioner remained in detention at
the first instance from 18.02.2025 till 24.05.2025 (96 days), and at
the second instance from 09.09.2025 to 22.10.2025 (44 days). In
view of the declaration of law by the Supreme Court, the broken
periods could be taken together to appreciate the claim of statutory
bail. The question now arises is: “Could the period during which the
petitioner remained in interim bail be counted for calculating the
requisite period for statutory bail?”.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as
the petitioner had no absolute liberty while he was on interim bail,
the said period could also be counted for the purpose of availing
statutory bail.
11. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the period
during which the petitioner remained in interim bail, at any rate,
could not be counted for granting statutory bail.
12. The learned Amicus Curiae has taken me to the various
decisions and the relevant statutory provisions. The learned
Amicus Curiae relaying on Amir Hassan Mir v. UT of J & K and
others, (Manu/JK/0206/2022), submitted that the petitioner could
not be treated to be in detention or custody for the period he was
released on temporary bail. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted
that the period during which he was released on temporary bail
should not be computed for the purpose of reckoning the period of
180 days as he had not been in detention. The learned Amicus
Curiae submitted that an accused who has undergone custody in
two spells in the same crime is entitled to get the two spells
combined to claim default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS.
The learned Amicus Curiae also submitted that only when the
continuous or broken periods of custody pieced together reaches
the requisite period; default bail becomes the right of the detained
person. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that only the actual
custody undergone by the accused will be counted for computing
the period for default bail. The learned Amicus Curiae, on going
through the facts of the case, submitted that the petitioner has
remained in detention only for 140 days. Therefore, he is not entitled
to statutory bail.
13. What matters for statutory bail is detention, as provided in
the statutory provisions, whether it is in one spell or in two spells.
An accused person is entitled to be released on statutory bail by
adding the truncated periods of detention suffered by him. I have
no doubt in concluding that the period during which the accused
person was released on temporary/interim bail should not be
computed for the purpose of reckoning the period for statutory bail,
as only the actual period of detention undergone by the accused
need be counted for. Therefore, the necessary conclusion is that
the petitioner is not entitled to statutory bail.
14. The Bail Application stands dismissed.
Before parting with the matter, this Court places on record its
profound appreciation to the learned counsel Sri.K.P.Sarath, for his
valuable assistance as Amicus Curiae.
Sd/-
K.BABU,
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment