No Extension Without Reasoned Order: Bombay High Court Affirms Default Bail Rights Under BNS S

The Bombay High Court has delivered a significant ruling reinforcing the importance of due process in criminal investigations, reiterating that the "indefeasible right" to default bail cannot be extinguished by casual administrative endorsements. In Ranganth Tulshiram Galande v. The State of Maharashtra , the Aurangabad Bench clarified that the judicial extension of investigation timelines under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNS S), 2023, requires a formal, reasoned order.

The Backdrop of the Dispute

The petitioners, accused in a case involving financial offenses under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ) and the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act , were arrested on July 7, 2025. Following their arrest, the prosecution was obligated to file a charge-sheet within 60 days, a deadline that expired on September 5, 2025.

When the charge-sheet failed to materialize, the petitioners sought default bail. However, the trial court rejected the application, relying on the fact that the Investigating Officer had invoked an additional, more serious section—Section 316(5) of the BNS —which carries a penalty of life imprisonment. The prosecution argued that this addition automatically extended the investigation period to 90 days. The trial court permitted this extension based on the mere endorsement "seen" on the application.

The Legal Question

The central legal question before Justice Sachin S. Deshmukh was whether the mere invocation of a harsher offense, accompanied by a casual judicial acknowledgment, satisfies the statutory requirement for extending custody under Section 187(3) of the BNS S.

Arguments from the Sides

Counsel for the petitioners highlighted that the magistrate failed to pass a speaking order, thereby depriving the accused of their right to contest the necessity of further detention. They argued that the right to default bail is an "indefeasible right" protected under Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be bypassed without strict adherence to statutory protocol.

The State argued that the invocation of the new section was sufficient to extend the timeline to 90 days, asserting that the magistrate’s "seen" remark served as an approval of this extension.

A Rigorous Standard for Liberty

In his analysis, Justice Deshmukh clarified that the extension of remand is not an empty formality. The Court emphasized that when the prosecution seeks additional time to investigate, the accused must be given a fair opportunity to contest that request.

The Court held that the procedural requirements of Section 187 of the BNS S are mandatory. Referring to the principle that statutory duties must be performed in the manner prescribed by law, the Court stated:

> "Mere invoking Section 316(5) of the BNS , automatically would not by itself extend the period of investigation to 90 days. There must be a specific and reasoned order to that effect by the Magistrate extending the judicial custody of the petitioners."

Key Observations

• On the Nature of Default Bail: "The right to claim the default bail is premised on the anvil of Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
• On Judicial Duty: "When the Court extends the detention of the accused beyond the prescribed period under the law, it was obligatory upon the Court to render a speaking and reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing."
• On Statutory Compliance: "If statute prescribes a particular act was performed in a specific manner and not in any other way, in deviation to the statutory procedure would render such act null and void."

Final Verdict: An Indefeasible Right

The High Court quashed the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shrigonda . By failing to provide a reasoned order, the lower court had violated the mandatory procedural safeguards meant to prevent improper detention. Consequently, the petitioners were granted default bail, subject to furnishing surety to the satisfaction of the trial court.

This judgment serves as a vital reminder to trial courts that administrative "stamping" or casual remarks are insufficient when personal liberty is at stake. The decision reinforces that the timelines set forth in the BNS S are not merely internal guidelines for the police, but constitutional safeguards that courts are bound to uphold.