Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 36620

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N. Tukaramji, J
Athaluri Pachipala Namratha – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case Nos. 849|850|851|852|857 OF 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nagamuthu
For the Respondents: M. Ramachandra Reddy

In multiple connected criminal cases arising from the same police station/factual foundation, the date of initial judicial remand constitutes 'deemed custody' for all such cases, necessitating the computation of the statutory period for default bail (Section 187(3) BNSS) from that original date of detention.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - S. 187(3) - Statutory (default) bail - Deemed custody - Accused in custody in one case, and multiple crimes arise from the same police station/factual foundation - Failure of authorities to formally show arrest in other cases—Held, such custody in one case shall be deemed custody in all connected cases - Period for filing charge sheet begins from date of first remand - Failure of Trial Court to grant bail despite expiry of statutory period is erroneous. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 17, 22)

(B) Article 21, Constitution of India - Right to statutory bail is substantive, indefeasible, and arises automatically upon expiry of statutory period - Cannot be curtailed by procedural irregularities or omissions of the investigating agency. (Para 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was in judicial custody since 27.07.2025 in connection with several surrogacy-related crimes registered by the same police station. The petitioner sought statutory bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS, arguing that the custody in the first case should be reckoned as deemed custody for all subsequent connected crimes. The trial court rejected this, holding that the statutory period for filing the charge sheet had not expired based on the date of formal regularization of arrest.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that when crimes are registered by the same police station and arise from a common series of transactions, the date of initial remand is the effective date for computing the statutory period. The Trial Court's refusal to grant bail after the lapse of the statutory period was contrary to law.

Issues: Whether the period for default bail is computed from the date of the first remand or the date of formal arrest/regularization in each individual case, where offenses are connected.

Ratio Decidendi: The right to default bail is an indefeasible statutory right under Section 187(3) of the BNSS; custodial time extends to all connected cases arising from the same police station, and administrative lapses in regularizing arrest cannot defeat this right.

Result: Criminal Revision cases allowed; Petitioner released on bail.

Table of Content
1. consolidation of revision petitions regarding bail. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 24.11.2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes

COMMON ORDER:

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 36620

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADN. Tukaramji, JAthaluri Pachipala Namratha – AppellantVersusState of Telangana – RespondentCriminal Revision Case Nos. 849|850|851|852|857 OF 2025

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N. Tukaramji, J
Athaluri Pachipala Namratha – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case Nos. 849|850|851|852|857 OF 2025