[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sunilkumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7760
CRL.P No. 201708 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201708 OF 2025
(439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SUNILKUMAR S/O NARASIHALU MOKA,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O H.NO.64, CHALUKYA NAGAR,
GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI.
2. GUNDU JOSEPH S/O GUNDU SHYAMBABU
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O H.NO.71, JANATA COLONY,
GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI,
3. CHANDANRAJ S/O VARADRAJ PILLAI
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
Digitally signed R/O H.NO.43, JANATA COLONY, HUBBALLI.
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH 4. PITER VINODCHAND S/O JAYACHANDRAPAL
COURT OF AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: LECTURER,
KARNATAKA
R/O H.NO.33, DEEN BANDY COLONY,
P.B.ROAD, HUBBALLI.
PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AKASH R. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
MANAGULI POLICE STATION.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7760
CRL.P No. 201708 of 2025
HC-KAR
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. (OLD), UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS (NEW),
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 (ACCUSED
NOS.3, 5, 6, AND 8) ON STATUTORY (DEFAULT) BAIL IN
CONNECTION WITH C.C.NO.2726/2025 (MANAGULI POLICE
STATION CRIME NO.69/2025) ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AT BASAVANA BAGEWADI FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 331(3), 331(4), 305(e), 313,
316(2 & 5), 332(c), 334(1&2), 241, 61, 190, 238(b) OF THE
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 (BNS) ON SUCH TERMS
AND CONDITIONS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIR.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 02.12.2025 COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING;
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The petition is filed by the accused persons under
Section 483 read with Section 187 (2) of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of bail in
CC No.2726/2025, arising out of Crime No.69/2025 of
Managuli Police Station, for the offences punishable under
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7760
CRL.P No. 201708 of 2025
HC-KAR
Sections 331(3), 331(4), 305(e), 313, 316(2), 316 (5),
332 (c), 334(1), 334(2), 241, 61, 190 and Section 238(b)
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pending on
the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court,
Basavana Bagewadi.
2. The facts of the case are as under:
The respondent-Police have registered Crime
No.69/2025 alleging that the petitioners, along with other
accused persons, were involved in committing a dacoity at
the Canara Bank, Managuli Branch, between 23.05.2025
and 25.05.2025. According to the prosecution, the
petitioners, along with accused Nos.2 and 13, entered into
a criminal conspiracy and hatched a plan to execute the
dacoity. It is alleged that the conspiracy was orchestrated
by accused No.2 in a room situated at Hubballi, pursuant
to which the remaining accused persons acted in concert.
3. The prosecution asserts that the actual
commission of dacoity took place on 24.05.2025. Accused
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7760
CRL.P No. 201708 of 2025
HC-KAR
Nos.2 and 13 are alleged to have gained unauthorized
entry into the bank premises using duplicate keys and
hydraulic cutters, whereas the present petitioners, along
with other accused, were assigned the task of monitoring
external movements around the bank. Specifically,
petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were positioned to observe activity
on the right side of the road, while petitioner No.4 was
entrusted with monitoring the left side. It is further alleged
that, after gaining access, accused Nos.2 and 13 managed
to commit theft of gold ornaments weighing 49,446.10
grams and cash amounting to Rs.5,20,450/-.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition,
contended with vehemence that the mandatory period of
90 days prescribed under Section 187(2) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has not been complied
with. Consequently, it was argued that the petitioners
have acquired an indefeasible right to statutory bail.
Furnishing details regarding the respective dates of arrest,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7760
CRL.P No. 201708 of 2025
HC-KAR
the learned counsel submitted that the charge sheet,
though stated to have been filed on 22.09.2025, was
never endorsed or shown as received by the jurisdictional
Magistrate, thereby depriving the petitioners of knowledge
of its filing. Drawing attention to the order sheet, the
learned counsel emphasized that, while it records filing of
the charge sheet on 22.09.2025, it simultaneously shows
that cognizance was taken only on 09.10.2025, which
creates an apparent contradiction. It was therefore argued
that the application for statutory bail, having been filed
after the 90-day period had elapsed, ought to have been
allowed, particularly when the order sheet does not
disclose any endorsement indicating the actual date on
which the charge sheet was received and perused by the
learned Magistrate. The counsel further submitted that the
subsequent reference made in the order dated 18.10.2025
cannot cure the absence of mandatory endorsement on
the charge sheet.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7760
CRL.P No. 201708 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. It was urged that filing of a charge sheet is a
judicial act, not an administrative formality, and Chapter
V, Rule 10 of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice,
1968 requires the Magistrate to endorse the date and
make an initial on the charge sheet upon receipt. In the
absence of such mandatory compliance, it was contended
that the alleged filing on 22.09.2025 cannot be construed
as a valid final report in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the
petitioners assert that their statutory right to default bail
must be recognized. It was further contended that the
finding of the Court below, that the charge sheet was filed
on the 89th day, is without any factual basis.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader, referring to the dates of arrest of each accused,
contended that the charge sheet was indeed filed on
22.09.2025, which is well within the statutory period of 90
days. Therefore, according to the prosecution, the right to
default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., now
corresponding to Section 187(2) of the BNSS, 2023, never
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7760
CRL.P No. 201708 of 2025
HC-KAR
accrued to the petitioners. Hence, it was urged that the
petitioners are not entitled to claim statutory bail.
7. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides
and have carefully perused the records, including the
charge sheet materials.
8. Section 187(2) of the BNSS, 2023, which
corresponds to the erstwhile Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.,
provides for grant of statutory or default bail in cases
where investigation is not completed, and a final report is
not filed within the prescribed period. For offences
punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or
imprisonment not less than 10 years, the permissible
period for completing investigation is 90 days; in all other
cases, the prescribed period is 60 days. The right to
default bail is a valuable and statutory right that accrues
automatically upon expiry of the statutory period, provided
the accused applies for bail before the filing of the charge
sheet.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7760
CRL.P No. 201708 of 2025
HC-KAR
9. The primary contention of the petitioners is
that, since cognizance of the charge sheet was taken only
on 09.10.2025, the alleged filing of the charge sheet on
22.09.2025 cannot be considered for computing the
statutory period. This Court is unable to accept the said
contention. It is a well-settled principle of law, reiterated
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions, that
the relevant date for extinguishing the right to default bail
is the date on which the charge sheet is filed before the
Court and not the date on which cognizance is taken. The
taking of cognizance is a judicial act that may occur
subsequently and is wholly irrelevant to the computation
of the statutory period. Once the charge sheet is filed
within the statutory period, the indefeasible right to
default bail stands extinguished.
10. In the present case, accused No.3 was arrested
on 26.06.2025, and the first remand is presumed to have
been made on the same day. The 90-day period would
thus expire on 24.09.2025. As the charge sheet was filed
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7760
CRL.P No. 201708 of 2025
HC-KAR
on 22.09.2025, i.e., before expiry of the 90 days, accused
No.3 cannot claim default bail. Accused Nos.5 and 6 were
arrested on 27.06.2025, and their 90-day period expired
on 25.09.2025. Since the charge sheet was filed on
22.09.2025, they too are not entitled to default bail.
Likewise, accused No.8, who was arrested on 01.07.2025,
would have completed 90 days on 29.09.2025, and
therefore, the filing of the charge sheet on 22.09.2025
defeats the claim for default bail even in his case.
11. The further contention of the petitioners that
Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 has
been deliberately included only to enlarge the period of
investigation from 60 days to 90 days is wholly outside the
scope of consideration in an application seeking statutory
bail. What is material for the present purpose is that the
offence alleged against the petitioners squarely falls under
Section 316(5), and the statute itself prescribes a period
of 90 days for completion of investigation and filing of the
charge sheet. Once the legislature has expressly provided
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7760
CRL.P No. 201708 of 2025
HC-KAR
a 90-day period for such offences, the Court, while
considering a petition under Section 187(2) of the BNSS,
2023, cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether
chargesheet materials reveal commission of offense
punishable under section 316(5) of BNS 2023. The Court is
confined strictly to examining whether the charge sheet
has been filed within the statutorily prescribed 90 days.
Therefore, the argument that Section 316(5) was
introduced to extend the period beyond 60 days cannot be
entertained at this stage.
12. The reliance placed by the petitioners on the
judgment of the Bombay High Court in Ranganath
Tulsiram Galande v. State of Maharashtra, Crl. W.P.
No.1299/2025, is wholly misconceived and of no
assistance to their case. In the said decision, the
Magistrate had merely endorsed the word "seen" on the
requisition submitted by the Investigating Officer, without
assigning any reasons or demonstrating due application of
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7760
CRL.P No. 201708 of 2025
HC-KAR
mind. It was in that limited factual context that the High
Court held the order to be unsustainable.
13. The factual scenario in the present case is
entirely distinct. Upon receipt of the requisition seeking
permission for further investigation, the learned Magistrate
issued notice to the accused and afforded them an
opportunity to file objections. The accused, however,
chose not to avail of the said opportunity. Thereafter, the
Magistrate proceeded to examine the grounds urged by
the Investigating Officer, considered the necessity for
further investigation, and passed a order granting
permission and extending police custody.
14. It is now well settled that the power to conduct
further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C.
squarely lies within the statutory domain of the
Investigating Officer, and the court's role at this stage is
supervisory and limited. Judicial interference is warranted
only where the action of the Investigating Officer is shown
to be mala fide or patently contrary to law. The Magistrate
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7760
CRL.P No. 201708 of 2025
HC-KAR
is not expected to scrutinize or dictate the manner,
modalities, or scope of such investigation, particularly in
cases involving serious offences of dacoity, criminal
conspiracy, and the alleged misappropriation of substantial
quantities of gold, which bear directly upon public order
and citizens' security.
15. Once the Investigating Officer, on the basis of
material collected, forms an opinion that further
investigation is necessary, the Magistrate's duty is
confined to satisfying himself that the request is bona fide
and not a colourable exercise of power. In the present
case, the Magistrate has duly applied his mind, recorded
satisfaction, and passed an order permitting further
investigation. Consequently, the extension of police
custody granted to facilitate the same cannot be interfered
with in a proceeding seeking default bail.
16. In light of the authoritative pronouncements of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Serious Fraud
Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi, 2022 SCC OnLine
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7760
CRL.P No. 201708 of 2025
HC-KAR
SC 153, wherein it has been unequivocally held that the
filing of the charge sheet within the stipulated period is
sufficient compliance with the proviso to Section 167(2) of
the Cr.P.C. and that the taking of cognizance is wholly
immaterial for determining the right to default bail, and
having regard to the settled legal position in Rajnikant
Jivanlal v. Intelligence Officer, NCB, (1989) 3 SCC
532, that the right under Section 167(2) is a legislative
mandate which accrues only upon the failure of the
investigating agency to file a charge sheet within the
prescribed period, this Court is of the considered view that
no such right accrued to the petitioners in the present
case. The charge sheet having been filed on 22.09.2025,
i.e., within the statutory period of 90 days from the date
of first remand, the petitioners cannot invoke the
indefeasible right to bail under Section 187(2) of the
BNSS, 2023. As further reiterated by the Madras High
Court in Kannan v. State (Crl.A. No.461/2022), the
scope of consideration under default bail is strictly
confined to the expiry of the statutory period and the filing
of the final report, and not the merits of the case. Applying
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7760
CRL.P No. 201708 of 2025
HC-KAR
these settled principles to the present factual matrix, it is
clear that the statutory conditions for grant of default bail
remain unmet, and therefore, the petitioners are not
entitled to relief under Section 187(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
17. Since the petitioners have approached this
Court solely on the ground of default bail under Section
187(2) of the BNSS, 2023, examination of other material
on record does not arise. Having concluded that the filing
of the charge sheet within the statutory period is the
decisive factor, and the date of cognizance is irrelevant,
this Court is of the firm view that the petitioners are not
entitled to statutory bail.
18. For the foregoing reasons, the following order is
passed:
ORDER
The petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8/CT:SI
