#default bail

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 43D(7) UAPA's bail bar for foreign nationals applies only when initial entry was unauthorized, not when a valid visa merely expires. Default bail under Section 43D(2) remains unaffected by Section 43D(7)'s non-obstante clause, and bail cancellation requires supervening circumstances, not re-litigation of the original grant. The ruling shields legally present foreign nationals from automatic UAPA bail denial while preserving the framework for genuine threats.

An order extending the NDPS investigation under Sec 36-A(4) was struck down for breaching the accused’s right to notice and a hearing, restoring their entitlement to default bail. The ruling underscores that procedural safeguards cannot be bypassed even in narcotics cases, affecting all persons facing NDPS prosecutions.

By reading the UAPA’s reference to CrPC 167 as a reference to BNSS 187, the Delhi High Court confirmed that default bail remains barred for 180 days in terrorism-related cases. This prevents a premature 90-day bail claim and affects all accused charged under the UAPA.

Andhra Pradesh High Court grants default bail to an accused under the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act after 63 days in custody, ruling that failure to file a charge sheet within 60 days entitles the accused to bail under Section 14A. The judgment reaffirms strict compliance with statutory timelines for charge sheets in atrocity cases.

The Kerala High Court has ruled that offences under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act, carrying a maximum punishment of 10 years without a mandatory minimum, fall under the 60-day default bail window of BNSS Section 187 - not the 90-day period reserved for offences with minimum imprisonment. This clarifies statutory rights for accused in non-commercial drug cases and prevents prolonged pre-trial detention where no statutory exception applies.

Gauhati HC rules that default bail under BNSS is forfeited once a charge sheet is filed within the 90-day statutory period, regardless of when cognizance is taken, provided a judicial order confirms its submission. This clarifies that procedural compliance with filing timelines overrides subsequent judicial delays in cognizance, impacting undertrial rights and prosecution strategies under the new criminal procedure code.

Bombay HC grants bail under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita where the accused’s role in a mob assault was cursorily alleged without specific evidence of participation. The ruling reinforces that vague identification or mere presence at the scene does not justify detention, setting a precedent for parity in bail matters.

Madras High Court rules that an accused's indefeasible right to statutory bail under Section 167 CrPC (as extended to 180 days under NDPS Act) remains intact even if the charge sheet is filed on the 180th day but before the wrong court. The ruling clarifies that procedural errors in filing do not negate the accused's entitlement to default bail.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that a procedural defect in granting a 180-day investigation extension under UAPA-such as the absence of a Public Prosecutor’s report-does not automatically entitle the accused to default bail if the charge sheet is filed within the extended period. The ruling underscores that compliance with statutory timelines prevails over technical lapses, preserving the prosecution’s case while balancing personal liberty under Article 21.

Gauhati High Court rules that the 60-day default bail limit under Section 483 of BNSS applies to attempted offences where the maximum punishment is 10 years or less, even if the completed offence carries a higher penalty. The judgment clarifies that punishment for attempt is half of the completed offence, directly impacting bail eligibility in POCSO and BNS cases.

Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that default bail under Section 480(6) B.N.S.S. 2023 is triggered if trial exceeds 60 days from first evidence date, regardless of procedural delays by prosecution.

Madras High Court holds that imposing cash deposit as a condition for statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC frustrates its purpose, aligning with Supreme Court precedent in Saravanan and Rakesh Kumar Paul.

Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS cannot be denied due to unverified clerical entries; burden lies on prosecution to prove actual filing of charge sheet.