Saleem Ahmad ......Revisionist State of Uttarakhand & another … v. Presence

on 23.09.2024 by the mother of the deceased. The FIR alleges that the deceased was subjected to sustained harassment on account of dowry, mental cruelty, and restrictions imposed by family members. It is further alleged that the circumstances leading to the suicide were sought to be concealed and that the death was unnatural. Based on these Criminal Revision No. 643 of 2025, Saleem Ahmad Vs. State of Uttarakhand- 1 Ashish Naithani J. allegations, initially offences under Section 103 sub-section 1 and Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were registered.

3. During the investigation, statements of witnesses, including family members, neighbours, and acquaintances, were recorded. Certain allegations pointing towards the conduct of the Revisionist were noted. The Investigating Officer thereafter invoked Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which pertains to abetment of suicide.

4. The Revisionist was apprehended and produced before the learned Magistrate on 11.06.2025, whereupon he was remanded to judicial custody. The investigation, however, was not completed within the statutory period prescribed for an offence punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

5. As per the record, no police report was filed within sixty days of the arrest and detention of the Revisionist. The statutory period expired on

10.08.2025. Thereafter, the Revisionist preferred Bail Application No. 1187 of 2025 on 04.09.2025, invoking Section 187 sub-section 3 clause (ii) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita on the ground that a valuable and indefeasible right had accrued to him.

6. The charge-sheet in the matter came to be filed on 08.09.2025, four days after the filing of the default bail application. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on the following date.

7. The learned Magistrate, while rejecting the application on 04.09.2025, observed that the statutory requirements were not fulfilled and that the grounds urged by the Revisionist did not warrant release on default bail. Feeling aggrieved, the Revisionist has approached this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

8. Learned counsel for the Revisionist submitted that the Revisionist has been in judicial custody since 11.06.2025 and that, in terms of Section Criminal Revision No. 643 of 2025, Saleem Ahmad Vs. State of Uttarakhand- 2 Ashish Naithani J. 187 sub-section 3 clause (ii) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the investigation in an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend up to ten years must be completed within sixty days. It was further submitted that Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita prescribes punishment which may extend to ten years and, therefore, the applicable statutory period is sixty days.

9. Learned counsel emphasised that the statutory period of sixty days expired on 10.08.2025 without submission of the final report. The Revisionist thereafter invoked his right under Section 167(2) of the Code by moving an application on 04.09.2025 and expressing his readiness to furnish bail. It was contended that the right to be released on default bail crystallises upon expiry of the statutory period and, once invoked, cannot be defeated by subsequent filing of the charge-sheet.

10. In support of this contention, learned counsel relied upon Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the extended period of ninety days applies only to offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term “not less than ten years.” The Court observed that offences not falling in this category fall within the sixty-day rule. The Revisionist submitted that since Section 108 BNS prescribes punishment which may extend up to ten years, and not not less than ten years, the sixty-day period is attracted, thereby entitling the Revisionist to default bail upon expiry of the said period.

11. Per contra, learned DAG for the State submitted that the investigation had reached an advanced stage and that the final report has already been submitted. It was contended that permitting release on default bail in a case concerning the abetment of suicide may hamper the progress of the trial. It was further submitted that the Criminal Revision No. 643 of 2025, Saleem Ahmad Vs. State of Uttarakhand- 3 Ashish Naithani J. impugned order does not suffer from illegality and that the learned Magistrate was justified in declining relief at that stage.

12. Learned DAG also contended that the Court must take into account the surrounding circumstances and the nature of allegations before exercising revisional jurisdiction.

13. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.

14. The issue that arises for determination is whether the learned Magistrate was justified in rejecting the application for default bail moved after expiry of the statutory period prescribed under Section 187 sub-section 3 clause (ii) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Section 187 sub-section 3 clause (ii) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita reads as follows: “187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours. … (3) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under sub-section (2) may, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as he thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole, and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Provided that,— (i) … (ii) where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, Criminal Revision No. 643 of 2025, Saleem Ahmad Vs. State of Uttarakhand- 4 Ashish Naithani J. the detention during investigation shall not exceed sixty days; (iii) where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than ten years, or with imprisonment for life, or with death, the detention during investigation shall not exceed ninety days.”

15. The structure of Section 187(3) makes the legislative distinction explicit. Clause (ii) applies when the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, attracting a sixty-day limitation. Clause (iii) applies only when the minimum punishment itself is not less than ten years, or when life imprisonment or death is prescribed. Therefore, an offence merely capable of attracting imprisonment up to ten years does not fall in the ninety-day category. This statutory demarcation forms the foundation for determining the default bail entitlement in the present case. Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provides: “108. Abetment of suicide.— Whoever abets the commission of suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.”

16. The phrase “may extend to ten years” is crucial. It denotes an upper ceiling, not a mandatory minimum. The offence does not prescribe a punishment not less than ten years. Therefore, when Section 108 BNS is read with Section 187 sub-section 3 clause (ii) BNSS, the statutory period available to complete investigation is sixty days. The offence does not, by its nature, fall within clause (iii), which is reserved for offences prescribing a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years or more. Criminal Revision No. 643 of 2025, Saleem Ahmad Vs. State of Uttarakhand- 5 Ashish Naithani J.

17. The interpretation of the distinction between “may extend to” and “not less than” was examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Chaudhary v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 5 SCC 34. Interpreting identical language under Section 167(2) CrPC, the Court held in paragraph 6 that— “the expression ‘not less than ten years’ clearly implies that the minimum punishment must be ten years. Where the minimum is less, and the punishment only ‘may extend up to ten years’, the offence would not fall under the said category.”

18. This interpretation is fortified by later authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67, wherein the Court clarified that the extended period of ninety days applies only to offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term not less than ten years. Herein, the Court held that— “the ninety-day period is attracted only where the offence punishable with a minimum sentence of not less than ten years. Offences that do not prescribe such a minimum fall under the sixty-day category.”

19. This authoritative interpretation squarely applies to Section 187 BNSS. As Section 108 BNS prescribes only a maximum term that may extend to ten years, and not a statutory minimum of ten years, the sixty-day period under Section 187 sub-section 3 clause (ii) is attracted.

20. The critical dates are not in dispute. The Revisionist was remanded on 11.06.2025. The offence under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita carries punishment which may extend to ten years. Therefore, in terms of Section 187 sub-section 3 clause (ii), the Criminal Revision No. 643 of 2025, Saleem Ahmad Vs. State of Uttarakhand- 6 Ashish Naithani J. investigation must be completed within sixty days. The statutory period consequently expired on 10.08.2025.

21. The police report was admittedly submitted only on 08.09.2025, whereas the default bail application had been filed earlier on

04.09.2025. Thus, on the date of moving the application, the right under Section 187, sub-section 3, clause (ii) had already accrued to the Applicant.

22. The principle governing default bail is that once the maximum prescribed period for investigation expires and the accused makes an application expressing readiness to furnish bail, the Court becomes mandatorily bound to release him. This right is independent of the merits of the accusations and is an integral part of the procedure established by law under Article 21.

23. It is also a settled principle that the subsequent filing of a charge- sheet after the accused has invoked the right cannot render such right ineffective. The learned Magistrate was therefore required to release the accused on default bail on 04.09.2025. The denial of such relief amounts to an infringement of the procedural guarantee available to an accused.

24. In revisional jurisdiction, this Court is required to examine the correctness, legality, and propriety of the impugned order. When the impugned order is contrary to statutory mandate and results in the denial of a substantive right, interference is necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice.

25. Applying the above principles, the impugned order dated

04.09.2025 cannot be sustained. The learned Magistrate overlooked the statutory provisions of Section 187, sub-section 3, clause (ii) and the relevant dates which unambiguously established that the right to Criminal Revision No. 643 of 2025, Saleem Ahmad Vs. State of Uttarakhand- 7 Ashish Naithani J. default bail had matured. The subsequent filing of the charge-sheet on

08.09.2025 cannot retrospectively extinguish this right.

26. This Court therefore finds that the Revisionist is entitled to default bail and the learned Magistrate erred in refusing relief. ORDER The Criminal Revision is allowed. The order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the learned Ist Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, in Bail Application No. 1187 of 2025 is hereby set aside. The Revisionist, Saleem Ahmad, is held entitled to statutory or default bail under Section 187 sub-section 3 clause (ii) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for Case Crime No. 194 of 2024, Police Station Basant Vihar, District Dehradun. The Court concerned shall release the Revisionist on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties to its satisfaction. The Revisionist shall appear before the trial court on all dates fixed, shall cooperate in the proceedings, and shall not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. (Ashish Naithani J.) Dated:24.11.2025 NR Criminal Revision No. 643 of 2025, Saleem Ahmad Vs. State of Uttarakhand- 8 Ashish Naithani J.