An accused is entitled to statutory bail if the investigation exceeds the time limits outlined for the nature of the charges, specifically in cases of serious offences like dacoity.

ORDER :

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

Petitioner seeks regular bail under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2. Petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.389 of 2025 of Kumbala Police Station, Kasaragod registered alleging offences punishable under sections 126(2), 115(2), 137(2), 310(2) and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNS ’).

3. The prosecution alleges that, on 06.05.2025 at around 2.30 p.m., accused wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and abducted him and compelled him to transfer 20,743 US dollars, which is equivalent to Rs.18,46,727/- and thereby committed the offence of dacoity. Petitioner was arrested on 08.05.2025 and he has been in custody since then.

4. Sri. K. Mohammed Rafeeq, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution allegations are false and that no such incident as alleged had occurred. It was further submitted that since the petitioner was remanded to custody on 08.05.2025, sixty days had expired by 06.07.2025 and till date final report has not been filed and hence the petitioner is entitled to be released on statutory bail. It was further submitted that considering the nature of allegations, the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner should be treated as sufficient, especially since the investigation is almost completed and hence the petitioner ought to be released on bail.

5. Sri. K.A. Noushad, the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the petitioner and other accused are alleged to have committed a very serious offence and they have committed dacoity which, as per section 310(2) of BNS is punishable with imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend upto ten years and hence, the period available for completing the investigation under section 187(3)(1) is ninety days. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, since the investigation has not yet been completed and the period for investigation is ninety days, petitioner is not entitled for statutory bail.

6. I have considered the rival contentions.

7. Amongst the offences alleged against the petitioner, the offence of dacoity carries with it a punishment of imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. For the purpose of easier comprehension, section 310(2) of BNS is extracted below:

“S.310(2).“Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine”.

8. Thus, the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offence of dacoity is imprisonment for life as well as rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years. No minimum punishment is prescribed.

9. Section 187 (3) of BNSS permits detention of a person beyond the period of fifteen days only if adequate grounds exist for doing so. However, the provision specifies that no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of an accused in custody for a total period exceeding ninety days where investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term of ten years or more and sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence. Thus, it is evident that if the investigation relates to an offence which provides for a punishment of imprisonment for a term of ten years or more or imprisonment for life or with death, then the Magistrate is entitled to authorise detention upto ninety days.

10. The question raised for consideration is whether the offence of dacoity, which is punishable with imprisonment