The right to statutory bail is inalienable once the statutory period expires for failing to file charges, irrespective of case merits.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

2. Since these criminal revision cases have been filed by the petitioner seeking identical reliefs concerning related pending crimes, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order:

(i) Crl. R.C. No. 849 of 2025 has been filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNSS ”), challenging the order dated 04.11.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 2959 of 2025 in Crime No. 100 of 2025 (Old Crime No. 155 of 2025) registered for offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(4), 336, and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNS”), by the learned XII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

(ii) Crl. R.C. No. 850 of 2025 has been filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS , challenging the order dated 04.11.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 2955 of 2025 in Crime No. 102 of 2025 (Old Crime No. 157 of 2025) registered for offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(4), 335, 336, 340, and 111 of the BNS, read with Sections 39(1) and 40 of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, by the learned XII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

(iii) Crl. R.C. No. 851 of 2025 has been filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS , challenging the order dated 04.11.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 2958 of 2025 in Crime No. 99 of 2025 (Old Crime No. 154 of 2025) registered for offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(4), 335, 336, 340, and 111 of the BNS, read with Sections 39(1) and 40 of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, by the learned XII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

(iv) Crl. R.C. No. 852 of 2025 has been filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS , challenging the order dated 04.11.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 2954 of 2025 in Crime No. 101 of 2025 (Old Crime No. 156 of 2025) registered for offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(4), 335, 336, 340, and 111 of the BNS, read with Sections 39(1) and 40 of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, by the learned XII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

(v) Crl. R.C. No. 857 of 2025 has been filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS , challenging the order dated 06.11.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. (SR) No. 12899 of 2025 in Crime No. 95 of 2025 (Old Crime No. 150 of 2025 of Gopalapuram Police Station, Hyderabad) registered for offences punishable under Sections 61, 308(2), 316, 318(4), 335, 336, 340, and 111 of the BNS, by the learned XII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the revision petitioner, who is the accused in the aforementioned crimes, filed petitions under Section 187 (3) of the BNSS seeking default bail. The learned Trial Court, in Crime Nos. 99 to 102 of 2025, dismissed the said bail applications, observing that the statutory period for filing the charge sheet had not yet expired and that the authority relied upon by the petitioner was factually distinguishable. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred these criminal revision cases.

Submissions of the Petitioner:

4.1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is implicated in several crimes registered on the file of Gopalapuram Police Station, all of which arise out of the same or substantially similar transactions. The petitioner was initially taken into custody in Crime No. 147 of 2025 on 27.07.2025. It is contended that since the offences alleged in the connected crimes are analogous in nature and stem from the similar set of facts, the period of custody in the first case ought to have been reckoned as deemed custody in the other cases as well.

4.2. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that, once the petitioner