The Telangana High Court has reaffirmed that failure to file a charge sheet within the statutory 90-day limit entitles an accused to mandatory bail, even in grave offences under the POCSO Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. This ruling underscores the primacy of procedural compliance over the seriousness of allegations when statutory timelines are breached.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Kamatam Shekshavali, is accused in Crime No.1223 of 2025 for allegedly abducting an 18-year-old woman from Kurnool railway station and taking her to Hyderabad. The prosecution alleges the petitioner convinced the victim to travel with him, stayed with her overnight, and dropped her near her home the next morning. He was later arrested at Chaitanyapuri Metro Station while waiting to meet her again. The case was initially registered as a missing person complaint but was later upgraded to offences under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 5 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Procedural History
- 02 December 2025: Victim left home for work and did not return
- 03 December 2025: Complaint filed by father; police registered case under woman missing
- 04 December 2025: Petitioner arrested after confession
- 04 December 2025: Petitioner remanded to judicial custody
- 04 March 2026: 90 days elapsed without charge sheet being filed
- 06 March 2026: Criminal Petition filed seeking bail
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought regular bail on the grounds that no charge sheet had been filed within the mandatory 90-day period under Section 483(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and that the offences under POCSO were not applicable since the victim was 18 years old.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an accused is entitled to mandatory bail under Section 483(2) of BNSS when the charge sheet is not filed within 90 days, even in cases involving allegations under Section 5 r.w. 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 64(2)(m) of BNS.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel argued that the victim was 18 years old at the time of the incident, rendering Section 5 of the POCSO Act inapplicable, as it only protects children below 18. Further, the conduct alleged did not meet the threshold for Section 64(2)(m) of BNS, which requires coercion or deception to induce sexual intercourse. The petitioner emphasized that no charge sheet had been filed despite 90 days having passed, entitling him to bail as a matter of right under Section 483(2) of BNSS. He cited State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar to reinforce that statutory rights to bail cannot be denied on speculative grounds.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Public Prosecutor conceded that the charge sheet had not been filed within 90 days but contended that the gravity of the alleged offence - particularly the potential exploitation of a minor - justified continued detention. He argued that the victim’s age was close to 18 and that the circumstances suggested predatory intent, warranting judicial discretion to deny bail despite the delay.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory mandate under Section 483(2) of BNSS, which provides that if a charge sheet is not filed within 90 days in cases triable by a Magistrate, the accused shall be released on bail if he is in custody. The Court held that this provision is mandatory and not discretionary. The phrase "shall be released" leaves no room for judicial discretion based on the nature of the offence.
"The right to mandatory bail under Section 483(2) BNSS is not contingent upon the court’s assessment of the seriousness of the offence or the likelihood of conviction. It is a statutory safeguard against indefinite incarceration without formal charges."
The Court further noted that while the allegations under POCSO were serious, the victim’s age of 18 years at the time of the incident rendered Section 5 of the POCSO Act inapplicable. The Court observed that the prosecution’s reliance on POCSO was legally unsustainable and that the charge under Section 64(2)(m) of BNS required proof of sexual intent, which was not substantiated in the remand report. The Court emphasized that procedural compliance is non-negotiable, even in cases involving vulnerable victims.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that mandatory bail under Section 483(2) of BNSS is enforceable upon the expiry of 90 days without a charge sheet, irrespective of the nature of the alleged offence. The petitioner was granted bail subject to conditions including personal bond, weekly reporting, and compliance with BNSS provisions.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Mandatory Bail Is Absolute After 90 Days
- Practitioners must immediately move for bail if the charge sheet is not filed within 90 days in Magistrate-triable cases
- Courts cannot deny bail on grounds of "gravity of offence" or "public interest" when statutory timelines are breached
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to justify delay, not to the accused to prove innocence
POCSO Does Not Apply to 18-Year-Olds
- Any prosecution under Section 5 of POCSO Act against a person aged 18 or above at the time of incident is legally untenable
- Defence counsel must challenge the applicability of POCSO at the earliest stage based on age verification
- Prosecutors must ensure accurate classification of offences before filing charges
BNSS Overrides Pre-2024 Bail Jurisprudence
- The BNSS has replaced CrPC provisions on bail in non-bailable offences
- Pre-BNSS precedents relying on judicial discretion in bail matters are no longer controlling
- Courts must now apply Section 483(2) BNSS as a strict deadline, not a guideline
