No monetary bond conditions permissible on statutory/default bail under S.167(2) BNSS to protect indefeasible right.

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Madurai in Cr.M.P.No.1997 of 2026 dated

24.03.2026, this criminal revision case is filed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.12 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police station for the offence under Section 318(2) of BNS, 2023, which was registered on 07.01.2026. The petitioner was arrested by the respondent police and remanded to judicial custody on 20.01.2026, and the petitioner had suffered incarceration for more than 64 days. Even thereafter, charge sheet was not filed by the respondent police and hence, the petitioner had made an application to release him on bail under Section 167 (2) BNSS, 2023. The learned trial Court had allowed the same subject to six conditions, more particularly directing the petitioner who is the 2^nd accused, to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.3 Crores with 2 solvent sureties each for a like sum. Challenging the said condition, this criminal revision case is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner categorically contended that the question of directing the accused to execute a bond for any amount in a matter of statutory bail will not arise, relying upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saravanan Vs. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police¹, and sought the indulgence of this Court.

4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side), on the other hand, submitted that the investigation has already been transferred to CBCID as early as on 26.03.2026 and a new crime number has also been assigned. In view of the same, CBCID is a necessary party. Having not impleaded the CBCID, the petitioner has no locus standi to come before this Court and sought dismissal of this case.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saravanan Vs. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police², has held as follows :

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the scheme and the object and purpose of default bail/statutory bail, we are of the opinion that the

1 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 599 2 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 599 High Court has committed a grave error in imposing condition that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.8,00,000/ while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory bail. It appears that the High Court has imposed such a condition taking into consideration the fact that earlier at the time of hearing of the regular bail application, before the learned Magistrate, the wife of the appellant filed an affidavit agreeing to deposit Rs. 7,00,000/. However, as observed by this Court in catena of decisions and more particularly in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra), where the investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, and no chargesheet is filed by 60 th or 90th day, accused gets an “indefeasible right” to default bail, and the accused becomes entitled to default bail once the accused applies for default bail and furnish bail. Therefore, the only requirement for getting the default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. is that the accused is in jail for more than 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, and within 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, the investigation is not completed and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day and the accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail. No other condition of deposit of the alleged amount involved can be imposed. Imposing such condition while releasing the accused on d