A failure to file a charge-sheet within 60 days entitles the accused to default bail, protected as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioners raise challenge to the order dated 09.09.2025 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrigonda, rejecting the application presented by the petitioners seeking default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS” for short)

3. The petitioners are accused in Crime No. 673 of 2025 registered with Shrigonda Police Station under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter “BNS” for short) and under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (hereinafter “MPID Act” for short).

4. The petitioners were arrested on 07.07.2025. In the wake of arrest in connection with offence for which petitioners were initially charged, the charge-sheet ought to have been filed within 60 days i.e. by 05.09.2025 as mandate under Section 187(3) of the BNSS. Owing to non-compliance of the same, the petitioners sought default bail before the Sessions Court.

5. In the interregnum, the Investigating Officer, submitted an application invoking of Section 316(5) of the BNS. On the said application, the concerned Court recorded the remark “seen”. Although it was incumbent upon the concerned Court to pass a reasoned and speaking order extending further judicial remand, as is required under sub-Section (3) of Section 187 of the BNSS recording satisfaction that adequate ground exists to do so. However, except recording the remark “seen”, as per mandate of Sub-section (3) of Section 187 is not complied with.

6. On account of such departure, the petitioners presented an application seeking relief of default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS contending that the investigation into the alleged offences necessarily ought to have been concluded within a period of 60 days from the date of first remand of the petitioners, which period eventually expired on 05.09.2025.

7. Mere invoking Section 316(5) of the BNS, automatically would not by itself extend the period of investigation to 90 days. There must be a specific and reasoned order to that effect by the Magistrate extending the judicial custody of the petitioners. In any case, the indefeasible right of the petitioners to be released on default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS cannot be disregarded.

8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrigonda rejected the request of the petitioners for default bail, holding that the invocation Section 316(5) of the BNS is sufficient since, the punishment prescribed for the added section includes the imprisonment for life. Therefore, according to the learned Judge, the period of filing of charge-sheet automatically stands extended from 60 days to 90 days. Resultantly, rejected the petitioners’ claim of the default bail which is indefeasible right of the petitioners.

9. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, contending the petitioners have an indefeasible right to claim default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS, owing to failure on the part of Investigating Officer to submit charge-sheet within a period of 60 days from the date of first remand of the accused / petitioners.

10. Mere invoking additional section 316(5) of the BNS, would not by itself extend the period of further custody of the petitioners in absence of specific order of the Magistrate under Section 187(