Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(GAU) 1028
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
Mridul Kumar Kalita, J
Davidlal Potsangbam S/o Son of Potsangbam Lakshmikanta Singh
BA 21 of 2025
For the Petitioner: M G Singh,
For the Respondent: P P of AP,
An accused is entitled to default bail if the statutory period of detention exceeds the prescribed limit, regardless of the nature of the charges.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 483(1), 187(3)(ii), 341(1) - Application for default bail - Accused detained for 64 days - Statutory period for detention for offences punishable with less than 10 years is 60 days - Section 341(1) is a bailable offence - Default bail cannot be denied based solely on the maximum punishment prescribed. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 6)
(B) Bail - Statutory bail - An accused is entitled to default bail if the statutory period of detention exceeds the prescribed limit, irrespective of the nature of the charges. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The accused was arrested on 25.11.2024 in connection with Itanagar P. S. Case No. 183/2024 and sought default bail after 64 days of detention, arguing that the statutory period for detention had lapsed for most charges.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the accused was entitled to default bail as the statutory period of detention had exceeded 60 days for the non-bailable offences, and Section 341(1) was bailable.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused was entitled to default bail given the statutory period of detention and the nature of the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the bailable nature of Section 341(1) meant that default bail could not be denied based solely on the maximum punishment prescribed.
Result: Bail application allowed.
ORDER
Heard Mr. M. G. Singh, learned counsel for the accused. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application under Section 483 (1) read with Section 187(3)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ) has been filed by the applicant for the accused, namely, Shri I. K. Soibam, praying for default bail in connection with Itanagar P. S. Case No. 183/2024, registered under Sections 61(2)/ 318(4)/ 336(2)/ 336(3)/ 340(1)/ 340(2)/ 341(1)/ 341(2)/ 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The accused has been detained behind the bars since 25.11.2024 [for last 64 (Sixty-Four) days].
3. The learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the accused was arrested in connection with the Itanagar Police Station Case No. 183/2024 on 25.11.2024 and on 28.01.2025, a bail application was moved on his behalf seeking default bail. The learned counsel for the accused has submitted that though apart from Section 341(1) of BNSS , 2023, for all other offences involved, the punishment is less than 10 (ten) years and therefore, the statutory period for which the accused could have been detained behind the bars is 60 (sixty) days only. He also submits that for the offence under Section 341(1) of BNSS , 2023, the maximum punishment prescribed is imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for a maximum of 7 (seven) years, however, as per First Schedule of the BNSS , the offence under Section 341 (1) of the BNSS is shown to be bailable offence and therefore, he is entitled to get bail. However, the learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class erred in interpreting the provision and rejected the prayer for default bail solely on the ground that the punishment prescribed for an offence under Section 341(1) of BNSS , 2023 is up to life imprisonment.
4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted that as the offence punishable under Section 341(1) of BNSS , 2023, is a bailable offence, the default bail could not have been rejected as for the other offences involved, the statutory period was already over.
5. I have gone through the materials available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides.
6. It appears that apart from offence under Section 341(1) of BNSS , 2023, for all other offences involved in this case, the maximum statutory period of detention is 60 (sixty) days. It appears that the learned counsel for the accused as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor have rightly submitted that though Section 341(1) of BNSS , 2023, prescribes punishment up to life imprisonment, however, as same is shown to be a bailable offence in the First Schedule of the BNSS , 2023, the statutory bail could not have been rejected to the accused merely on the ground of the punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 341(1) of BNSS , 2023. As the present accused has already been detained behind the bar for last 64 (sixty-four) days, he has already completed the statutory period of detention in respect of the offences involved in this case, hence, the above named accused in entitled to get statutory default bail.
7. In view of the above, the accused person, namely, Shri I. K. Soibam [Itanagar P. S. Case No. 183/2024, registered under Sections 61(2)/ 318(4)/ 336(2)/ 336(3)/ 340(1)/ 340(2)/ 341(1)/ 341(2)/ 339 of the BNS, 2023], is hereby allowed to go on bail, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, subject to the following conditions:
(i). That the accused person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts either to the Investigating Officer or to the Court; and
(ii). That the accused person shall co-operate in
