[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri K Kiran vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2026
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
CRL.P No. 2351 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 2320 of 2026
HC-KAR
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2351 OF 2026
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2320 OF 2026
IN CRL.P No. 2351/2026
BETWEEN:
SRI JAGADISH P,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O PADMANABAN R,
R/AT NO. 303, 3RD FLOOR,
THE CANOPY APARTMENTS,
BABUSAPALYA, KALYAN NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDESH.J.CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI SAMPREETH V, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
PRAKASH N AND:
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH CID POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.N JAGADEESHA, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 OF THE BHARATIYA
NAGARIKA SURAKSHA SANHITHA, 2023, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.12.2025 PASSED BY
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
CRL.P No. 2351 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 2320 of 2026
HC-KAR
THE LEARNED 42ND A.C.M.M, BENGALURU LD.SPL.COURT FOR
TRIAL OF CASES AGAINST MPs/MLAs IN KARNATAKA IN CRIME
NO.73/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW APPLICATIONS
FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 187(3) OF BNSS,
2023 ON 22.12.2025 AND ETC.
IN CRL.P NO. 2320/2026
BETWEEN:
1. SRI K KIRAN,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O P C KRISHNA,
NO. 2009, ASHA TOWNSHIP,
DODDAGUBBI, 14TH CROSS,
NEAR BRITS CLUB,
BENGALURU - 560 077.
2. SRI VIMAL RAJ B,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O BABU RAJ,
NO. 10, VMV HOUSE,
5TH CROSS, OLD YUKO BANK ROAD,
VIJANAPURA,
BENGALURU - 560 016.
3. SRI MADAN R,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
S/O LATE RAJAN,
NO. 327, RAMAIAH BUILDING,
1ST CROSS, RAMAMURTHYNAGAR,
K R PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM. M., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH CID,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
CRL.P No. 2351 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 2320 of 2026
HC-KAR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.N JAGADEESHA, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 OF THE BHARATIYA
NAGARIKA SURAKSHA SANHITHA, 2023, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2025 IN
CRL.RP.NO.676/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXXXI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BENGALURU THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED
26.12.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XLII ADDL C.J.M,
BENGLAURU IN CRIME NO.73/2025 AND
CONSEQUENTIALLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION DATED
22.12.2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION
187(3) OF BNSS 2023 AND ENLARGE THEM ON BAIL,
PRODUCED AT DOCUMENTS NO.1, 2, 3 AND 4
RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
ORAL ORDER
Criminal Petition No.2351/2026 has been filed by
Petitioner/Accused No.1, while Criminal Petition
No.2320/2026 has been filed by Petitioners/Accused
Nos.2, 3 and 7, all challenging the order dated 02.02.2026
rejecting Crl.R.P.No.676/2025 passed by the Court of
LXXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
[CCH-82], whereby the order dated 26.12.2025 passed in
Crime No.73/2025 by the Court of XLII ACJM, at
Bengaluru, rejecting the applications filed by the
Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 7 seeking default bail
under Section 187(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 ['BNSS' for brevity] has been confirmed.
2. The brief facts are that, on 15.07.2025, the
mother of the deceased Shivaprakash @ Biklu Shiva had
lodged a complaint stating that eight to ten unknown
individuals had fatally assaulted her son at 8.10 p.m. near
their house with "long" and "machhu", who succumbed to
injuries.
3. On the basis of information, FIR came to be
registered in Crime No.73/2025 by Bharathinagar Police
Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections
103 and 190 of BNSS.
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
4. It is further stated that the Petitioners/Accused
Nos.2, 3 and 7 were mentioned in the FIR and were
arrested and remanded to custody on 17.07.2025.
5. Insofar as Petitioner/Accused No.1, it is stated
that he had fled the Country and later he was arrested and
deported to the Country and remanded to judicial custody
on 26.08.2025.
6. It is made out that the case came to be
transferred to CID for further investigation on 24.07.2025.
7. It is relevant to notice that in terms of the order
dated 12.08.2025, CID invoked the provisions of the
Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act, 2000 ['KCOCA'
for brevity].
8. The Time Line of events and legal proceedings
is extracted in the Table hereinbelow for completeness of
factual background:-
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
DATES EVENTS
15.07.2025 The mother of the deceased, Smt. Vijayalakshmi filed a complaint
against the accused persons including the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1,
2, 3 and 7. Based on the same complaint, FIR in Crime No.73/2025
was registered in Bharatinagara P.S.
12.08.2025 CID granted approval to invoke KCOCA in Crime. No. 73/2025.
09.10.2025 Learned Special Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section
22(2) (b) of KCOCA, 2000 seeking for extension of time for a further
period of 90 days before the Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru (CCH-82).
14.10.2025 Accused no. 5 i.e Sri. Byrathi Basavaraj in Crime no. 73/2025 filed
W.P.No.31304/2025 seeking to quash the order dated 12.08.2025,
which granted permission to invoke KCOCA against him.
17.10.2025 The Court of LXXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
(CCH 82) permitted the Investigation Agency to file a Final report by
granting further period of 45 days.
04.11.2025 The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 3 and 7 have challenged the order
dated 17.10.2025 before this Court in Crl.P. No.15186/2025.
21.11.2025 Learned SPP filed another application under Section 22(2)(b) of
KCOCA, 2000 for extension of further 45 days in Crime No. 73/2025
before the Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-82).
21.11.2025 The Petitioner/Accused No.1 also challenged the order dated
17.10.2025 passed by Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
(CCH-82) by filing Crl.P. No. 16102/2025 before this Court.
28.11.2025 The Court of LXXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
(CCH 82) allowed the application under Sec. 22(2)(b) of KCOCA, 2000
in part and permitted the Investigation Agency to file a Final Report
by granting another period of 30 days.
On the same day, Crl.P No.15186/2025, which was filed by the
Petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 3 and 7 challenging the grant of further
extension of 45 days was dismissed by this Court.
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
19.12.2025 This Court in W.P No. 31304/2025 quashed the invocation of KCOCA,
2000.
22.12.2025 The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 7 had filed an application u/s
187(3) of BNSS seeking default bail in Crime No.73/2025 before the
Court of XLII ACJM, Bengaluru at about 12:00 pm and there was no
chargesheet filed at that point of time.
On the same day, the Investigation Agency submitted preliminary
chargesheet at about 5:15 pm.
26.12.2025 The Court of XLII ACJM, Bengaluru rejected the application of default
bail filed on 22.12.2025 by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 7.
27.12.2025 The State has challenged the order dated 19.12.2025 in W.P No.
31304/2025 passed by this Court quashing KCOCA, before the Apex
Court in SLP (Cri.) No. 57/2026.
29.12.2025 The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 7 being aggrieved, challenged
the order dated 26.12.2025 by filing a Revision petition in Crl.R.P.
No.676/2025 under Section 438 r/w 440 of BNSS, 2023 before the
Court of LXXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-
82), seeking to set aside the order dated 26.12.2025 passed by the
XLII ACJM, Bengaluru and consequently allow the application filed
u/s.187(3) of BNSS by them.
02.02.2026 The Court of LXXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
(CCH-82) dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition No. 676/2025 filed
by the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7.
11.02.2026 The Petitioner/Accused No.1 has filed Crl. P. No. 2351/2026 while the
Petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 3 and 7 have filed Crl.P No. 2320/2026,
before this Court, seeking for default bail under Section 187(3) of
BNSS and also prayed to set aside the impugned orders dated
02.02.2026 passed by the Court of Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-82) and 26.12.2025 passed by the XLII ACJM,
Bengaluru.
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
9. In light of the claim of petitioners who seek to
be enlarged on default bail, the relevant dates that are to
be taken note of to decide on their right to default bail, are
reflected in the Table hereinbelow:-
I II III IV V VI VII
Accused Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of No. of No. of days
arrest Remand Expiry of 90 expiry of expiry of days in in custody
days Extension Extension custody after
period period after the quashing of
granted for granted for Expiry of the Order of
45 days 30 days 90 days Approval of
till this KCOCA till
date this date
i.e i.e
13.03.2026 13.03.2026
Jagadish 25.08.2025 26.08.2025 23.11.2025 07.01.2026 06.02.2026 110 days 84 days
@ Jagga
A-1
Kiran 16.07.2025 17.07.2025 14.10.2025 28.11.2025 28.12.2025 150 days 84 days
A-2
Vimal Raju 16.07.2025 17.07.2025 14.10.2025 28.11.2025 28.12.2025 150 days 84 days
A-3
Madan R 16.07.2025 17.07.2025 14.10.2025 28.11.2025 28.12.2025 150 days 84 days
A-7
10. The application filed by the Petitioners/Accused
Nos.1, 2, 3 and 7 under Section 187(3) of BNSS before
the Court of XLII ACJM, Bengaluru, came to be rejected
observing that the period for completion of investigation
was extended by judicial order at a point of time when the
Order of Approval dated 12.08.2025 invoking the
provisions of KCOCA was in force. Accordingly, it was held
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
that the setting aside of the Order of Approval for invoking
the provisions of KCOCA was neither anticipated nor
foreseen and therefore, it cannot be held that there was
any default on the part of Prosecution to file the charge-
sheet.
11. It was also held that the order extending the
period to complete investigation cannot be curtailed by
mere setting aside of the Order of Approval of KCOCA. It
is further observed that the order passed in W.P
No.31304/2025 on 19.12.2025 setting aside the Order of
Approval for invocation of KCOCA would not vitiate the
order of extension of period of investigation.
12. It was observed that immediately after the
order of this Court on 19.12.2025, an application was filed
by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 7 at 12.00 p.m.
on 22.12.2025 seeking grant of default bail, while the
preliminary charge-sheet came to be filed at 5.15 p.m. on
the same day, i.e. on 22.12.2025.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
13. It was held that where the application and
charge-sheet were filed on the same day, the right of
accused to claim default bail stood extinguished by filing of
charge-sheet.
14. The said order came to be challenged jointly by
the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 7 herein in
Crl.R.P. No.676/2025. The Revisional Court affirmed the
finding by the Special Court holding that, as the order
extending the time to complete investigation passed by
the Special Court not having been challenged was
unaffected by the order of this Court dated 19.12.2025
quashing the Order of Approval invoking KCOCA.
15. The Revisional Court also held that, in the event
of application for default bail and Final Report were filed
on the same day, the Court is required to apply its mind as
regards the assertion of indefeasible right as having
accrued in favour of the accused.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
16. The Revisional Court, applying the law laid
down by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at
Bombay in Dinesh Ganesh Indre and Others v. The
State of Maharashtra1 has rejected the contention of the
petitioners and affirmed the order passed by the Special
Court.
17. Heard Sri Sandesh Chouta, learned Senior
Counsel and Sri Aruna Shyam, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of petitioners and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha,
learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
respondent State.
18. It is to be noticed that the period for completion
of investigation when the accused is in custody, if exceeds
ninety days, where the offence is punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for the term of not
less than ten years, would entitle the accused for default
(2024) SCC OnLine Bom 940
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
bail. This is made out on a reading of Proviso (a)(i) to
Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. [ 187(3) of BNSS].
19. In the case of offence under KCOCA, there
would be modification of the provisions of the Code in light
of the stipulation in Section 22 of KCOCA, wherein, an
additional period of ninety days is provided up to which
the Special Court could extend the period to complete the
investigation.
20. Admittedly, as regards the Petitioners/Accused
Nos.1, 2, 3 and 7, the period of ninety days in custody has
been completed as per Column No. III in the Table supra.
It is also not in dispute that in light of applicability of
provisions of KCOCA, the Special Court has extended the
custody beyond the period of ninety days as is evidenced
from the Table.
21. The Special Court had, by its order dated
28.11.2025 permitted the Investigating Agency to file the
Final Report by granting further period of thirty days. As
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
on 28.11.2025, the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 3 and 7
had completed 135 days of custody. While as regards
Petitioner/Accused No.1 by order dated 07.01.2026 period
to investigate was extended and as on such date the
Petitioner/Accused No.1 had completed 135 days.
22. The order of this Court setting aside the
administrative approval granted for invoking of provisions
of KCOCA as per the order in W.P.No.31304/2025 was
passed in 19.12.2025.
23. The consequence of setting aside of the order
granting approval for invocation of KCOCA would be that
the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 7 are now
governed by the Provisions of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.
[187(3) of BNSS]. The order came to be passed on
19.12.2025 and the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 7
initially moved default bail application on that day but it
was transmitted to the Court of XLII ACJM due to lack of
jurisdiction as the provisions of KCOCA was set aside.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
Accordingly, the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 7
sought default bail before the Special Court on 22.12.2025
at 12.00 pm, by way of application under Section 187(3)
of BNSS.
24. It is not in dispute that the preliminary charge-
sheet itself came to be filed only at 5.15 p.m. on the said
day, i.e. on 22.12.2025.
25. It is a settled position of law that the right to
claim default bail when in custody would be ninety days in
terms of Proviso (a)(i) to Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. In the
peculiar facts of the present case, as time was extended
by virtue of Proviso to Section 22(2) of KCOCA, it could be
construed that the Police had the power to file charge-
sheet within the extended period as ordered by the Court.
Clearly, the order setting aside approval granted being a
jurisdictional issue, such order would have the effect of
negating the applicability of the extended time beyond 90
days as provided under Proviso (a) to 167(2) of Cr.P.C. If
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
that were to be so the right to claim default bail
immediately accrued. It could then be construed that the
period of extended time to file the charge-sheet could be
limited to the day on which order was passed in
W.P.No.31304/2025 i.e on 19.12.2025 and the right to
seek default bail would arise on the following day.
26. Accordingly, the order in said Writ Petition was
pronounced on 19.12.2025 and the right of the petitioners
to claim default bail accrued on 20.12.2025.
27. It is a settled position of law that once an
application for default bail is filed, if, as on such date and
instant when petitioners assert their right, if charge-sheet
is not filed, the indefeasible right of petitioners is required
to be upheld.
28. The Police having filed the preliminary charge-
sheet at 5.15 p.m., on 22.12.2025 have contended that,
though an application claiming default bail was filed by the
petitioners at 12.00 p.m. on 22.12.2025, the right to
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
default bail would not arise, in light of the charge-sheet
being filed on the same day.
29. Such factual situation is precisely dealt with by
the Apex Court in the following decisions:-
(i) M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate
of Revenue Intelligence2 at para-24, which is extracted
hereinbelow:-
"24. In the present case, admittedly the appellant
accused had exercised his option to obtain bail by
filing the application at 10.30 a.m. on the 181st day
of his arrest i.e. immediately after the court
opened, on 1-2-2019. It is not in dispute that the
Public Prosecutor had not filed any application
seeking extension of time to investigate into the
crime prior to 31-1-2019 or prior to 10.30 a.m. on
1-2-2019. The Public Prosecutor participated in the
arguments on the bail application till 4.25 p.m. on
the day it was filed. It was only thereafter that the
additional complaint came to be lodged against the
appellant. Therefore, applying the aforementioned
principles, the appellant-accused was deemed to
have availed of his indefeasible right to bail, the
(2021) 2 SCC 485
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
moment he filed an application for being released
on bail and offered to abide by the terms and
conditions of the bail order i.e. at 10.30 a.m. on 1-
2-2019. He was entitled to be released on bail
notwithstanding the subsequent filing of an
additional complaint."
(ii) Enforcement Directorate, Government of India
v. Kapil Wadhawan and Another3 at para-61, which is
extracted hereinbelow:-
"61. Since there exists vacuum in the application
and details of Section 167 CrPC, we have opted for
an interpretation which advances the cause of
personal liberty. The accused herein were
remanded on 14-5-2020 and as such, the charge-
sheet ought to have been filed on or before 12-7-
2020 (i.e. the sixtieth day). But the same was filed,
only on 13-7-2020 which was the 61st day of their
custody. Therefore, the right to default bail accrued
to the accused persons on 13-7-2020 at 12.00
a.m., midnight, onwards. On that very day, the
accused filed their default bail applications at 8.53
a.m. ED filed the charge-sheet, later in the day, at
11.15 a.m. Thus, the default bail applications were
filed well before the charge-sheet. In Ravindran4
(2024) 7 SCC 147
M. Ravindran v. Revenue Intelligence Directorate, (2021) 2 SCC 485 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 876
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
and Bikramjit5 ,which followed the Constitution
Bench in Sanjay Dutt6 it was rightly held that if the
accused persons avail their indefeasible right to
default bail before the charge-sheet/final report is
filed, then such right would not stand frustrated or
extinguished by any such subsequent filing."
30. Though, the observations of the Apex Court in
Kapil Wadhawan's case (supra) are stated to be in the
context of a reference and it is contended that
observations made are apart from answer to the issue of
reference which cannot be relied upon, however, we find
that the observations reiterate what the Apex Court had
stated in M. Ravindran's case(supra).
31. Accordingly, the right to default bail having
accrued even on a reasonable interpretation on
20.12.2025 and the petitioners having exercised their right
by 12.00 p.m. on 22.12.2025 were entitled to be released
on bail. The filing of the charge-sheet at 5.15 p.m. on
22.12.2025, which is later in point of time could not defeat
Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 616 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 85
Sanjay Dutt v. State, (1994) 5 SCC 410 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1433
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
the indefeasible right accrued to the petitioners to be
released on bail.
32. The respondent State has contended that where
the application seeking default bail and the charge-sheet
are filed on the same day, then notwithstanding that the
application seeking default bail is filed prior in point of
time, both, the application seeking default bail and the
charge-sheet must be considered and a composite order is
to be passed.
33. Reliance is placed on the decision of Division
Bench of this Court in Mohammed Jabir v. National
investigation Agency, represented by SPP High Court
Building7.
34. It must be noticed that the facts in the case of
Mohammed Jabir (supra) was that, where the
proceedings were pending under the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 [UAPA] and the permission for
(2024) SCC OnLine Kar 28
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
extension of time to file the charge-sheet was sought and
after such request, on the same day, the application for
default bail was filed, the Court was called upon to pass
orders as regards the aspect of default bail. The Court
after referring to various authorities was of the opinion
that the application seeking extension of remand and
application seeking default bail had to be decided
together.
35. However, where the maximum time stipulated
either under Cr.P.C. or as extended by virtue of provision
of Special Enactment has exhausted itself, the question of
continuance of custody while seeking extension of time
to file the charge-sheet does not arise.
36. Where the maximum period provided under
Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. or as extended by virtue of the
Special Enactment has spent itself and where application is
filed seeking default bail, the question of passing any
order extending custody does not arise. In the present
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
case, by virtue of the Order of Approval dated 12.08.2025
invoking the provisions of KCOCA having been set aside,
the only time limit available for the completion of
investigation was ninety days in terms of Proviso (a)(i) to
Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. If that were to be so, as
discussed supra, the time for filing chargesheet would
stand reduced to 90 days and on the day next of the order
of setting aside approval to invoke KCOCA, the right to
default bail could be asserted. In the present case the
application for default bail is filed at an earlier point of
time, the question of considering the charge-sheet filed at
a later point of time does not arise. It is clearly laid down
by the Apex Court that after lapse of the maximum time
available for filing of charge-sheet when accused is in
custody and the application for default bail is filed, the
filing of charge-sheet subsequently even at a subsequent
point of time on the same day cannot be considered.
37. It is also to be noticed that the validity of the
orders of extension of time to file the charge-sheet passed
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
by the Special Court extending the time beyond the
maximum period of ninety days provided for under Proviso
(a)(i) to Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., by virtue of
applicability of further extension due to special provisions
of KCOCA would not stand, once the applicability of special
provisions has been set aside.
38. As in the present case, once the Court has set
aside the Order of Approval invoking the provisions of
KCOCA by its order passed on 19.12.2025 in
W.P.No.31304/2025, the maximum period of retaining the
accused in the custody would be in terms of Proviso (a)(i)
to Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., i.e. for ninety days.
39. It must be noticed that the curtailment of
liberty of an individual is only as per the procedure
prescribed under law, which is also a Fundamental Right
traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The
law, by virtue of which, liberty is sought to be infringed
would be Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., which provides the
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
maximum period of ninety days to complete the
investigation in case of 'Class of Offences' referred to in
Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. Any order permitting
continuance of detention beyond the said period of ninety
days not being sanctioned under law would amount to
violation of Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The above view is reflected in the
observations of Apex Court in case of Uday Mohanlal
Acharya v. State of Maharashtra8 and relevant
paragraph is extracted herein below:-
"13. ...... When the law provides that the
Magistrate could authorise the detention of the
accused in custody up to a maximum period as
indicated in the proviso to sub-section (2) of
Section 167, any further detention beyond the
period without filing of a challan by the
investigating agency would be a subterfuge and
would not be in accordance with law and in
conformity with the provisions of the Criminal
Procedure Code, and as such, could be violative
of Article 21 of the Constitution."
(2001) 5 SCC 453
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
40. In such context, though an order for extension
of time to complete the investigation beyond the period of
ninety days was permissible when KCOCA was invoked,
such order would however turn to be eclipsed, once the
applicability of KCOCA is set aside, though subsequently.
41. The order of the Court made at a point of time
when KCOCA was applicable would turn to be an order
impermissible in law on the day of approval of invocation
of KCOCA is set aside by the Court. The order of
extension loses its legal basis on 19.12.2025. The order
for extension from such date becomes inoperable as not
being sanctioned in law. Any detention after 19.12.2025,
which does not have the backing of a statutory law, would
be violation of the constitutional right under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, of the accused.
42. The contention that the accused had themselves
contributed to the delay in completion of investigation by
filing multiple petitions and accordingly, contributing to
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
delay in investigation is a contention that requires
rejection. The concept of default bail is contained in
Proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. The embargo
imposed is as regards authorisation of detention for a total
period not exceeding ninety days, when investigation
relates to offence punishable with death, imprisonment for
life or imprisonment for term of not less than ten years as
per Proviso (a)(i) to Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C, and sixty
days in cases as stipulated in Proviso (a)(ii) to Section
167(2) of Cr.P.C.
43. Such statutory embargo does not provide for
extension of period fixed. In the absence of power
conferred to the Court to extend such period, the Court
cannot transgress the legislative mandate.
44. It is by judicial interpretation the Courts have
further held that the right to claim to be released on
default bail on expiry of the time fixed to be an
indefeasible right. The Courts have further held that, once
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
such right is exercised and charge-sheet is not filed, the
right to default bail follows.
45. Accordingly, the request of respondent State to
consider the genuine difficulties in adhering to the timeline
does not permit consideration. The time limit fixed is
absolute.
46. It must be noticed that both, the Special Court
as well as the Revisional Court had rejected the application
of petitioners seeking to be enlarged on default bail on the
primary ground that the order for extension of time to
complete the investigation were passed during the
subsistence of provisions of KCOCA that were extended. It
was observed that the subsequent setting aside of the
Order of Approval would not have the effect of rendering
the orders of extension of time illegal.
47. As observed above, the orders of extension of
time cannot have life beyond 19.12.2025 when the
applicability of Order of Approval of KCOCA was set aside.
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
The orders of extension do not have any legal basis to
stand after such order.
48. Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Special Public
Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent State had
sought for deferring of passing of the order till the Apex
Court finally dispose of SLP (Crl.) No. 57/2026.
49. It was submitted that setting aside of the order
of approval of applicability of provisions of KCOCA was yet
to be decided finally by the Apex Court and that leave
having been granted, the matter is pending before the
Apex Court in Crl.A 429/2026.
50. It is further stated that necessary motion has
been moved before the Apex Court to clarify the interim
order earlier granted.
51. It is to be noticed that the Apex Court by its
interim order dated 20.01.2026, while considering
challenge to the order of this court setting aside the order
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
of approval for invocation of KCOCA, had observed at para
3 as follows:
"3. Meanwhile, the impugned judgment and order of the
High Court shall not be relied upon as a binding precedent."
52. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Sandesh Chouta
and Sri Aruna Shyam, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the Apex
Court not having stayed the order of this court in
W.P.No.31304/2025, there was no impediment for this
court to proceed further.
53. It is further submitted that the observation of
the Apex Court was only that the order passed by this
court in W.P.No.31304/2025 would not be relied upon as a
binding precedent. It is submitted that though the order
of the High Court could not be cited as precedent in other
matters, insofar as parties to the lis, it would holds good.
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
54. This court has concluded hearing of the matter
on 03.03.2026. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on
subsequent occasions including on 10.03.2026 and
12.03.2026 at the request of the respondent. At this
juncture, continuing to adjourn the matter in the absence
of any order of stay of the order of this court would only
result in prolonging incarceration of the petitioners.
55. Needless to state, in the event of any adverse
order being passed by the Apex Court regarding
applicability of KCOCA, consequences would follow.
56. Accordingly, the court proceeds to pass orders
while imposing conditions in the event Apex Court were to
pass adverse order reversing the order passed in
W.P.No.31304/2025.
57. Accordingly, in light of the above, the petitions
are allowed. The order dated 26.12.2025 passed by the
Court of XLII ACJM, Bengaluru, in Crime No.73/2025 as
well as the order dated 02.02.2026 passed in Crl.R.P.
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
No.676/2025 by the Court of LXXXI Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru are set aside and the
application dated 22.12.2025 filed by the petitioners
under Section 187(3) of BNSS are allowed and the
petitioners, viz., accused Nos.1, 2, 3, and 7 are directed to
be released on bail subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Petitioners shall execute a personal bond of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one
surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the
concerned court.
(b) The Petitioners shall fully co-operate for the
expeditious disposal of the trial.
(c) The Petitioners shall not tamper with evidence,
influence in any manner any witness.
(d) In the event of change of address, the Petitioners
to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(e) The Petitioners shall not leave the State without
the permission of the jurisdictional court.
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15100
HC-KAR
(f) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by
the Petitioners, shall result in cancellation of bail.
Any observation made herein shall not be taken as
an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
58. It is however, made clear that this order
granting default bail on account of the quashing of KCOCA
approval in W.P No. 31304/2025 dated 19.12.2025, shall
remain subject to any orders passed in the proceedings
pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP
(Crl.) No. 57/2026 against the said quashing order. In the
event the Hon'ble Supreme Court allows the petition, then
the Petitioners shall abide by the legal consequences
flowing from such order passed.
SD/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
VGR/NP
