The remand day must be included in the 90-day calculation for default bail eligibility, ensuring protection of personal liberty as per statutory requirements.

JUDGMENT :

H.S. Grewal, J.

The petitioner has filed this revision petition seeking setting aside the order dated 03.02.2025 whereby his default bail application filed under Section 187 (3) BNSS , 2023 [ Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C.] has been denied by the trial Court on the ground that it was filed before the expiry of 90 days i.e. on the 90th day.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR had been registered on 21.10.2024 and the petitioner was arrested on 05.11.2024. On the same day, he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate and was remanded to custody. He applied for default bail under Section 187 (3) BNSS , 2023 [ Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C.] on 03.02.2025 at about 02.00 pm i.e. after the expiry of 60 days. However, on the same day at about 03:15 pm, the Investigating Officer presented the challan before the trial Court. Therefore, the challan was presented on the same day right after the filing of the bail application to extinguish the bail application filed by the petitioner.

4. I have carefully gone through the record of the case.

5. The petitioner is stated to be arrested on 05.11.2024 in FIR No.147 Dated 21.10.2024, registered under Sections 125 /285/324 BNS ( Section 113 (2) BNS added later on) at Police Station Haibowal, Ludhiana. He had applied for default bail under Section 187 (3) BNS S , 2023 [ Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C.] on 03.02.2025 at about 02.00 pm i.e. after the expiry of 60 days. However, on the same day at about 03.15 pm, the Investigating Officer presented the challan before the trial Court. Vide the impugned order dated 03.02.2025, the JMIC has declined the bail in accordance with Section 187 (3) BNS S , 2023 holding that the day on which the petitioner was produced before the Court on 05.11.2024 and remanded to the custody, would be excluded while computing the period of 90 days. The trial Court has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Rustam and others , 1995(Supl)(3) SCC 221, wherein it was observed that while computing the period of 90 days, the day on which the accused/petitioner was remanded to judicial custody should be excluded and the day on which the challan is filed in the Court, should be included.

6. A bare reading of Section 187 (3) of the BNSS reveals as under:-

“(3) The Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this sub-section for a total period exceeding-

(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of ten years or more;

(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XX XV for the purposes of that Chapter.”

7. However, the three Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Enforcement Directorate, Government of India versus Kapil Wadhawan and another etc. , 2024(3) SCC (Cri.)81 have held as under:-

“58. Let us now test the argument propounded by the learned ASG, that if an accused is produced before a Magistrate at 11:50 PM on a given day, say, 01.01.2023, and if Section 9 of the General Clauses Act is not applied, then only a few minutes of that day would have to be counted as an entire day for purposes of calculating the rem