Recently, the Bombay High Court held that extension of judicial remand beyond the statutory period of 60 days under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), without affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused and without passing a reasoned order, is contrary to law and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Sachin S. Deshmukh allowed a criminal writ petition filed by two accused seeking default bail after the investigating officer failed to submit the charge sheet within the prescribed 60-day period. The petitioners were charged under Section 316(2), Section 318(2), and Section 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), along with Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act).
The prosecution had invoked Section 316(5) of the BNS to justify the extension of the charge sheet period from 60 to 90 days on the ground that the added offence attracted life imprisonment. The Magistrate, however, merely recorded the remark “seen” on the remand application without rendering any reasoned order extending custody. The Sessions Court thereafter rejected the petitioner’s plea for default bail, relying on the invocation of the new section.
Setting aside this approach, the Court held that such an endorsement does not satisfy the statutory requirement under Section 187(3) of the BNSS, which mandates a speaking order following an opportunity of hearing. Justice Deshmukh observed, “The right to claim the default bail is premised on the anvil of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” He further stated that, “…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.”
The Court clarified that mere invocation of Section 316(5) of the BNS “would not by itself extend the period of further custody of the petitioners in absence of specific order of the Magistrate under Section 187(3) of BNSS.” It emphasised that the extension of remand “is not an empty formality and must be undertaken in strict compliance with the procedural and statutory requirements.”
Emphasising procedural fairness, the Court explained that if, during custody, the investigating officer discovers additional material leading to new or enhanced offences, “it is incumbent upon the Officer to issue notice to the accused before presenting the fresh remand application.” This procedure, the Court said, “is rather mandatory…such due procedure safeguards the rights of the accused and ensures judicial control over the detention of the custody of the accused persons.”
Holding that the Magistrate’s endorsement of “seen” did not amount to judicial satisfaction or compliance with Section 187(3) of the BNSS, the Court concluded that any deviation from the statutory mandate “has impact of impairing the constitutional right of liberty of an individual.” Such non-compliance, it ruled, creates an “indefeasible right of the petitioners to claim default bail.”
Accordingly, the Court quashed the Sessions Court’s order passed on September 9, 2025, and directed that the petitioners be “enlarged on default bail forthwith, subject to furnishing bail bonds / surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.”
Case Title: Ranganth Tulshiram Galande and Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Case No: Criminal Writ Petition No. 1299 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin S. Deshmukh
Advocate for Petitioner: Advs. Rahul R. Karpe, S. R. Nikat
Advocate for Respondent: APP S. M. Ganachari
Picture Source :
