Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 63165

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 Rao

The entitlement to statutory bail arises automatically upon the expiry of the statutory investigation period; custody in one related case is treated as 'deemed custody' for all connected crimes arising from the same factual foundation, regardless of formal arrest records.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 187(3) - Statutory (default) bail - Claim of deemed custody - Petitioner, already in custody for a related crime, sought bail arguing that investigation period for subsequent connected FIRs should be computed from the date of initial remand - Court held that physical custody in one crime extends to connected crimes arising from the same police station and factual foundation - Omission of authorities to formally record arrest does not prejudice the accused's right to liberty - Statutory right to default bail is indefeasible and mandatory once the statutory period of investigation expires without a charge sheet.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is an accused in multiple criminal cases related to surrogacy arrangements. While in judicial custody since 27.07.2025 for an earlier crime, the petitioner sought statutory bail in subsequent cases (Crime Nos. 99 to 102 and 95 of 2025), contending that the statutory period for filing charge sheets had expired based on the date of the first remand. The Trial Court denied these applications, observing that investigation in each case occurred independently based on separate registration dates.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that all connected FIRs originated from the same police station and were interlinked through the same factual series of transactions. Consequently, the initial remand date governs the custody period for all such cases, regardless of administrative lapses in record-keeping or case transfers. Since the statutory period of 90 days had expired for some cases without a charge sheet, the petitioner was entitled to statutory bail.

Issues: Whether the period of detention in an earlier case can be reckoned as 'deemed custody' for the purpose of computing the statutory time limit for filing a charge sheet in multiple related crimes to claim default bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The right to default bail is substantive and arises automatically upon the expiry of the statutory period for investigation. Custody in one related case is deemed to be custody globally for all connected crimes arising from the same factual foundation, and administrative delays in formalizing arrest cannot defeat the accused's constitutional right to personal liberty. Result : Appeals allowed.

Table of Content
1. overview of multiple revision petitions concerning statutory 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. 14

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 63165

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

The entitlement to statutory bail arises automatically upon the expiry of the statutory investigation period; custody in one related case is treated as 'deemed custody' for all connected crimes arising from the same factual foundation, regardless of formal arrest records.

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