Karnataka HC Clarifies Police Custody Period Under BNS: 'Ten Years or More' Means Minimum 10 Years for 90-Day Investigation/Custody Window, 'Up to Ten Years' Means 60 Days/40-Day Window (S.187 BNS) - 2024-12-13

Karnataka High Court Clarifies Police Custody Rules Under New BNS Law

Bengaluru: In a significant ruling interpreting the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the High Court of Karnataka has clarified the period within which police custody can be granted, distinguishing between offences punishable with a minimum of ten years imprisonment and those where the punishment may extend up to ten years.

Justice M.Nagaprasanna , presiding over the case (Criminal Petition No.13459 OF 2024 C/W Writ Petition No.33526 OF 2024), dismissed petitions filed by the State and the complainant challenging an order by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangalore. The Magistrate had rejected the prosecution's request for police custody of the accused, citing that the statutory period for seeking such custody under the BNS had lapsed for the alleged offences.

Case Background

The case stems from a crime registered on October 6, 2024, following a death. The initial offences registered were under Sections 108 (abetment of suicide), 308(2) & (5) (extortion), and 351(2) & 352 (criminal intimidation/insult) of the BNS. Several accused were arrested between October 9 and October 12, 2024, and were initially remanded to judicial custody. Some accused were later granted police custody for limited periods, culminating around October 25, 2024.

The prosecution subsequently sought further police custody, reportedly to confront the accused with voice samples. This request was opposed by the defence. The Magistrate rejected the request, reasoning that under Section 187 of the BNS, police custody in cases where the investigation period is 60 days (for offences punishable up to ten years) is only permissible within the first 40 days of detention. Since the request came after this 40-day period, it was rejected.

Arguments Presented

For the State and Complainant: Senior Counsel P.P. Hegde and Additional State Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesha argued that abetment to suicide (S.108 BNS) is punishable up to ten years, which should be considered equivalent to "ten years or more" as mentioned in Section 187(3)(i) BNS. They contended that this category allows for a 90-day investigation period and police custody within the first 60 days. They argued that the Magistrate's interpretation was erroneous and would allow accused persons in heinous offences to obtain statutory bail prematurely. The State added that police custody was crucial to confront the accused with voice samples and mentioned a pending application to add the offence of abetment for ransom (S.140(2) BNS), which carries harsher penalties.

For the Accused: Senior Counsel Hasmath Pasha and advocate B. Lethif countered that there was no significant change in the interpretation of the relevant provision from the erstwhile Section 167 of the CrPC to Section 187 of the BNS. They argued that offences punishable "up to ten years" fall under Section 187(3)(ii) BNS, which mandates a 60-day investigation period and limits police custody to the first 40 days of detention. Since the request for police custody was made after this 40-day window, the Magistrate's rejection was correct and warranted no interference.

Court's Analysis and Interpretation of BNS Section 187

Justice Nagaprasanna meticulously examined Section 187 of the BNS, comparing it with the repealed Section 167 of the CrPC. Section 187(3) BNS allows for a total detention period (judicial or police) of: * 90 days for offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for a term of ten years or more [S.187(3)(i)]. * 60 days for any other offence [S.187(3)(ii)].

Within these periods, Section 187(2) BNS states that police custody (up to 15 days in total) can be authorised "at any time during the initial forty days or sixty days out of detention period of sixty days or ninety days, as the case may be".

The core legal question hinged on the interpretation of "ten years or more" in Section 187(3)(i) BNS, versus the earlier CrPC phrase "not less than ten years" (Section 167(2)(a)(i)).

The Court relied on previous Supreme Court judgments interpreting the CrPC provision, particularly Rajeev Chaudhary v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2001) 5 SCC 34 and Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67 . These judgments held that "not less than ten years" meant the minimum sentence imposable is ten years or more.

Applying this principle to the BNS phrase "ten years or more", the High Court held that it similarly refers to offences where the minimum threshold punishment is ten years.

Offences punishable up to ten years (like Section 108 BNS, which states punishment "may extend to ten years"), do not have a minimum threshold of ten years; the sentence can range from less than a year up to ten years. Such offences, therefore, fall under the category of "any other offence" under Section 187(3)(ii) BNS, attracting a 60-day investigation period.

The Court clarified the police custody window based on the investigation period: * If investigation is 90 days (S.187(3)(i) offences), police custody (max 15 days total) can be granted within the first 60 days of detention. * If investigation is 60 days (S.187(3)(ii) offences), police custody (max 15 days total) can be granted within the first 40 days of detention.

The Court noted that the alleged offences in the present case, punishable up to ten years, mandated a 60-day investigation period. Consequently, police custody requests could only be entertained within the initial 40 days of the accused's detention. The Magistrate's finding that this period had elapsed was found to be correct.

The High Court also referenced the Supreme Court's emphasis in M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, (2021) 2 SCC 485 on interpreting such provisions in favour of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, especially when there is ambiguity in penal statutes or procedures curtailing liberty.

Conclusion

Finding no error in the Magistrate's order or the interpretation of Section 187 of the BNS, the High Court dismissed both the State's and the complainant's petitions. The Court reinforced that offences punishable "up to ten years" fall under the 60-day investigation category with a 40-day window for police custody, whereas only offences with a minimum threshold punishment of "ten years or more" qualify for the 90-day investigation period and the 60-day window for police custody. The pending application to add a more serious charge before the Magistrate was noted, but it did not alter the legality of the impugned order based on the offences alleged at that time.