The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that statutory bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is an automatic right when the investigation exceeds the statutory time limit without a charge sheet being filed. This decision reinforces the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and places a strict obligation on investigative agencies to complete probes within the prescribed period.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Katikala Shivabhagya Rao, a 65-year-old resident of Hyderabad, is accused in Crime No. 222 of 2025 filed by the II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam. The allegations stem from his alleged involvement in operating "Sneha Macs," a scheme promising 12% interest returns to depositors under the banner of Dr. Ambedkar’s ideology. Approximately 2,500 depositors, including the complainant from the SC community, invested around ₹51 crores. The prosecution alleges that funds were diverted to purchase properties and assets, with no repayment made upon maturity, constituting offences under Sections 420, 406, 411, 414, 120B r/w 34 IPC, and provisions of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 and the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.
Procedural History
The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 3 December 2025. As of the date of the petition, no charge sheet had been filed despite the statutory deadline having lapsed. The investigation remained incomplete, with no indication of imminent completion. The petitioner moved the High Court under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail on the ground of statutory entitlement.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought release on regular bail, arguing that his continued detention violated Section 187 of BNSS, which mandates release on bail if the charge sheet is not filed within 60 days of arrest or judicial custody.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 entitles an accused to statutory bail when the investigation is not completed and no charge sheet is filed within 60 days of judicial custody, irrespective of the gravity of the offence or the status of the probe.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 187 of BNSS is a mandatory provision designed to prevent indefinite pre-trial detention. He relied on the legislative intent behind replacing Section 167 CrPC with Section 187 BNSS, emphasizing that the 60-day limit is absolute and non-extendable except under specific exceptions not applicable here. He cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to underscore that liberty is the norm and custody the exception.
For the Respondent
The Assistant Public Prosecutor conceded that the investigation was incomplete and no charge sheet had been filed. She did not contest the petitioner’s entitlement under Section 187 BNSS but requested the Court to impose stringent bail conditions to safeguard the investigation and prevent witness tampering.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the language of Section 187 of BNSS, which states that if the charge sheet is not filed within 60 days, the accused "shall be released on bail" if he is prepared to and does furnish bail. The Court held that this provision is mandatory, not directory, and operates automatically upon expiry of the period. The Court rejected any notion that the seriousness of the offence or the volume of evidence could override this statutory right.
"The right to statutory bail under Section 187 BNSS is not a discretionary privilege but a statutory entitlement that crystallizes upon the lapse of the prescribed period without a charge sheet."
The Court emphasized that the legislature deliberately shortened the period from 90 days under CrPC to 60 days under BNSS to expedite justice and protect the accused’s right to liberty. The failure of the police to complete the investigation within this timeframe cannot be a reason to continue detention. The Court noted that the prosecution’s concession confirmed the factual basis for bail.
The Court further clarified that while bail must be granted, it is not unconditional. The Court has the authority to impose reasonable conditions to ensure the integrity of the investigation and the safety of witnesses.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that Section 187 of BNSS mandates release on bail when the charge sheet is not filed within 60 days of judicial custody, regardless of the nature of the offence. The petitioner was granted regular bail subject to specific conditions designed to preserve the investigation’s integrity.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Bail Is Automatic and Non-Discretionary
- Practitioners must immediately move for bail under Section 187 BNSS if the charge sheet is not filed within 60 days of judicial custody
- Courts cannot deny statutory bail on grounds of "gravity of offence" or "public interest"
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to justify delay, not to the accused to justify release
Conditions May Be Imposed, But Not as a Substitute for Denial
- Bail conditions under Section 187 BNSS must be narrowly tailored to prevent tampering or flight
- Conditions cannot amount to de facto continued custody (e.g., excessive surety, weekly reporting)
- Any condition violating the spirit of liberty must be challenged as ultra vires
Investigation Delays Are Not an Excuse for Detention
- Investigating agencies must prioritize timely completion of probes
- Courts must record reasons if a charge sheet is delayed beyond 60 days
- Persistent delays may invite contempt proceedings or departmental action against investigating officers
