'Extension Of Judicial Remand Beyond 60 Days Without Hearing & Reasoned Order Is Illegal': Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that extending judicial remand beyond the statutory period of 60 days under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused and without passing a reasoned order, is contrary to law and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.Justice Sachin S. Deshmukh was hearing a petition...
The Bombay High Court has held that extending judicial remand beyond the statutory period of 60 days under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused and without passing a reasoned order, is contrary to law and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Sachin S. Deshmukh was hearing a petition filed by two persons accused of offences under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. The petitioners sought default bail under Section 187(3) of BNSS after the Investigating Officer failed to file a charge sheet within the prescribed 60 days.
The prosecution had relied upon the invocation of Section 316(5) of the BNS, contending that the addition of an offence carrying life imprisonment automatically extended the charge sheet period to 90 days. The Magistrate merely marked the application as “seen,” without passing any reasoned order extending the remand. Relying on this endorsement, the Sessions Court rejected the petitioners' application for default bail.
The Court noted that the right to claim the default bail is premised on the anvil of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If additional material is discovered that constitutes new or additional offences, it is incumbent upon the Prosecution Officer to issue notice to the accused before presenting the fresh remand application to the concerned Court. It observed:
“This procedure is rather mandatory… in relation to the additional offences based on new material gathered during the investigation, such due procedure safeguards the rights of the accused and ensures judicial control over the detention or the custody of the accused persons.”
The Court observed that Section 187(3) of BNSS makes it mandatory for the Magistrate to render a speaking and reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing. The Court emphasised that judicial custody is not a mere formality and must be undertaken in strict compliance with the procedural and statutory requirements.
“… when the Court extends the detention of the accused beyond the prescribed period under the law, it was obligatory upon the Court to render a speaking and reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing,” the Court observed.
The Court held that Section 187(3) of BNSS is mandatory in nature, and any slightest departure from the statutory mandate has the impact of impairing the constitutional right of liberty of an individual, thereby creating an indefeasible right of the petitioners to claim default bail.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the Sessions Court's order dated 9 September 2025, allowed the petition, and directed that the petitioners be released on default bail upon furnishing surety.
Case Title: Ranganth Tulshiram Galande & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Writ Petition No. 1299 of 2025]