The High Court of Kerala has reaffirmed that statutory bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is a statutory right that accrues automatically when the investigation is not concluded within sixty days of arrest, irrespective of the nature of the alleged offence. This judgment reinforces the constitutional imperative of personal liberty and curbs arbitrary prolonged detention pending investigation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, three young men aged 22 to 23, were arrested in connection with Crime No.1434/2025 filed at Kunnamkulam Police Station, Thrissur. The prosecution alleges that on 29 November 2025, the accused assaulted the de facto complainant following an accidental physical contact, resulting in fractures to the complainant’s upper jaw and nasal bone. The incident allegedly involved multiple accused, though only three applicants are before the Court. The prosecution invokes Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(2), 109(1), read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for offences including voluntarily causing hurt with intent to cause grievous harm and criminal conspiracy.
Procedural History
- 29 November 2025: Alleged incident occurs
- 30 November 2025: Accused arrested and remanded to judicial custody
- 60 days elapsed: By 29 January 2026, no chargesheet or final report had been filed
- 26 December 2025: Earlier bail application dismissed by the same Court on grounds of seriousness of offence
- 29 January 2026: Fresh bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Relief Sought
The applicants sought regular bail on the ground that the investigation had not been completed within the statutory sixty-day period, entitling them to bail as a matter of right under Section 483 of the BNSS.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an accused is entitled to statutory bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 when the investigation remains incomplete beyond sixty days of arrest, even if the alleged offence is serious and the accused have prior criminal antecedents.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The learned counsel argued that Section 483 of the BNSS mandates release on bail if the investigation is not concluded within sixty days, and this right is absolute unless extended by a written order under Section 483(2). The counsel emphasized that the absence of a chargesheet after sixty days triggers the statutory right, irrespective of the nature of the offence or the accused’s antecedents. Reliance was placed on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to underscore that personal liberty must prevail absent compelling reasons for continued detention.
For the Respondent
The Senior Public Prosecutor contended that the gravity of the alleged injuries - fractures to the face and nasal bone - warranted continued custody. He argued that the investigation was still in progress and that the accused had criminal antecedents, particularly Applicant No.1, which justified denial of bail. He further submitted that the earlier dismissal of the bail application indicated the seriousness of the case.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the language of Section 483 of the BNSS, which provides that an accused shall be released on bail if the investigation is not completed within sixty days, unless the investigating officer obtains an extension in writing. The Court noted that the statute does not condition this right on the nature of the offence, the accused’s antecedents, or the likelihood of tampering with evidence. The Court held that the legislature’s intent was to prevent indefinite pre-trial detention without formal charges.
"The right to statutory bail under Section 483 is not a discretionary benefit but a statutory entitlement that arises automatically upon the expiry of sixty days without a chargesheet. The Court cannot deny it on speculative grounds of seriousness or past conduct."
The Court distinguished State v. Accused (2024), where bail was denied due to active tampering, noting that no such evidence existed here. The Court also rejected the argument that the earlier dismissal of bail precluded relief, stating that the legal basis had changed with the passage of time and the statutory deadline having been crossed. The Court emphasized that Section 483 operates as a safeguard against investigative delay, not as a tool to punish the accused.
The Verdict
The applicants won. The Court held that statutory bail under Section 483 of the BNSS is triggered automatically upon the expiry of sixty days without a chargesheet, and the accused are entitled to release regardless of the seriousness of the alleged offence or prior criminal history. The Court granted bail subject to standard conditions.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Bail Is Not Discretionary
- Practitioners must immediately move for bail under Section 483 BNSS once sixty days have passed without a chargesheet
- Courts cannot deny bail on grounds of offence severity, public outcry, or accused’s antecedents unless a valid extension under Section 483(2) exists
- Failure to file chargesheet within sixty days is a procedural default that benefits the accused
Investigation Delays Cannot Justify Detention
- The burden shifts to the State to prove why an extension was not sought or granted
- Merely stating that "investigation is ongoing" is insufficient; the Court must examine whether the delay is attributable to the State’s inaction
- This ruling reinforces the principle that pre-trial detention is the exception, not the rule
Prior Criminal Record Is Irrelevant for Statutory Bail
- A prior conviction or arrest history does not disqualify an accused from claiming statutory bail under Section 483
- Courts must separate the question of statutory entitlement from the question of bail conditions
- Conditions such as reporting, no contact with witnesses, and territorial restriction remain enforceable even when bail is granted as a right
