Default Bail After Ninety Days: When Does the Indefeasible Right Crystallise?
On 12 January 2023 the Devarapalli police registered an FIR under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC and arrested the accused the same day. He has been in judicial custody since, under successive remand orders. On 13 April 2023 he applied before the Magistrate under Section 167(2) CrPC, asserting that the 90-day period had expired with no charge-sheet on record. A charge-sheet with the statements of 24 witnesses was filed on 15 April 2023; it records that the chemical examination report on the bloodstained weapon and the call detail records are awaited, and that further investigation will continue under Section 173(8). The Magistrate took cognizance on 16 April. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail on three grounds: the charge-sheet is now on record, so any right is extinguished; the report is not incomplete merely because the FSL report is awaited, since Section 173(8) permits supplementary investigation; and the offence is grave, with local witnesses who may be influenced.
1. Compute the 90-day period from the arrest. When did the right under Section 167(2) accrue, and was the application of 13 April competent?
Read the worked answer
Which period applies. Section 167(2)(a)(i) allows 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years. Section 302 IPC answers that description, so 90 days, not 60, is the relevant limit.
Computation. The day of arrest is excluded and the period runs from the date the accused was first remanded to custody. Treating 13 January 2023 as day one: January gives 19 days (13 to 31), February 28 (total 47), March 31 (total 78), and the ninetieth day is 12 April 2023. The charge-sheet of 15 April was therefore three days late.
Accrual. The right to be released on default bail is not a matter of discretion; it arises by force of the statute on the expiry of the prescribed period without a charge-sheet. It crystallises on 12 April 2023 and was invoked on 13 April, before any report was filed. Under Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, an accused who applies after the period expires and before the charge-sheet is filed has availed himself of an indefeasible right, and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to remand him further in the absence of a report.
Competence. The application was competent and timely. It matters that the accused remained in custody throughout; the right is personal and cannot be defeated by the prosecution's convenience.
2. Does the charge-sheet of 15 April, filed after the application, defeat the right? What is the effect of the FSL report being awaited and of Section 173(8)?
Read the worked answer
The decisive distinction is sequence. Under Sanjay Dutt v. State, if a charge-sheet is filed before the accused applies, the right is lost because the occasion for it no longer exists. If the accused applies first, the right becomes indefeasible and a charge-sheet filed later cannot take it away. Here the application preceded the charge-sheet, so the subsequent filing does not extinguish the right; the Magistrate is left only with the power to release on bail bonds, with conditions that do not frustrate the grant.
Incomplete report argument. The prosecution's second point is legally sound in the abstract but does not help it here. A report under Section 173(2) need not contain every item of evidence; a charge-sheet filed with the essential material, while the FSL report is awaited, is a complete report enabling the Magistrate to take cognizance, and Section 173(8) permits further investigation. Pending investigation does not postpone the right to default bail, and conversely the accused cannot insist that an otherwise adequate report is no report merely because a laboratory result is outstanding.
Why the argument misfires. If the 15 April report is a complete report, it was still three days late, so the right had already accrued. If it is treated as no report at all, the default continues and the right is even plainer. On either branch the accused succeeds.
Gravity is irrelevant at this stage. The seriousness of the offence and the risk of influencing witnesses are considerations under Section 437, not a ground to deny a statutory right that has already crystallised. They may inform conditions, not refusal.
3. What order should the Magistrate pass, and what conditions may lawfully be imposed? What would change if the arrest had been made after 1 July 2024?
Read the worked answer
Order. The Magistrate must release the accused on bail on his furnishing bail bonds with sureties to the satisfaction of the court. The jurisdiction is limited to fixing the bond and to imposing conditions that secure attendance at trial; it cannot be converted into an occasion to weigh the evidence or the gravity of the charge.
Permissible conditions. He may be required to appear before the investigating officer or the court as directed, not to tamper with evidence or contact witnesses, not to leave the jurisdiction without leave, and to surrender his passport if one exists. Conditions that operate as a denial of bail are impermissible: a cash deposit of a large sum as a precondition, surety by a particular class of person, or a direction that the release awaits the FSL report.
Consequence of later committal. Once the charge-sheet is filed, the case proceeds and the accused remains on the bail already granted; the prosecution may seek cancellation only on fresh grounds such as breach of conditions or misuse of liberty, not merely because the charge is serious.
Post 1 July 2024. On the repeal of the CrPC, Section 187 of the BNSS carries forward the default bail scheme in substantially identical terms, with the same 60-day and 90-day classification. Section 531 BNSS saves pending investigations commenced under the old Code, so a pre-repeal arrest continues to be governed by Section 167 CrPC; only arrests in a proceeding initiated after the commencement date would attract Section 187 BNSS.