Crl.Petn./68/2026 of Abu Hanifa @ Hanif Ali Vs The State of AP on 24 March 2026

ORDER

25.03.2026 Heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1.

2. The accused/petitioner contended that he was arrested on 14.01.2026 in connection with Basar P.S. Case No.26/2025, under Sections 336(3) and 340(2) of BNSS, 2023, and has been in custody since then.

3. It is submitted that even after expiry of the statutory period of 60 days from the date of the arrest of the accused/petitioner, the I.O. failed to submit the charge-sheet in the case. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application seeking statutory default bail under Section 187(2) of BNSS before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, on 17.03.2026, which was registered as Bail Application No.12/2026. However, since the learned CJM, Aalo, was on leave, the bail application was placed before the learned Executive Magistrate for consideration of bail application and was listed on 18.03.2026 for a bail hearing. Although the bail application was heard by the learned Executive Magistrate, no order has been passed till date.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking a direction to the concerned Magistrate to dispose of the aforesaid bail application.

5. Mr. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, fairly submits that this bail application may be disposed of with a direction to the concerned Magistrate to decide the matter in accordance with law.

6. Having heard the parties and upon perusal of material placed on record, it appears that the accused/petitioner was arrested on 14.01.2026, and even after the expiry of 60 days from the date of his arrest, the I.O. failed to file any charge-sheet into the case. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed Bail Application No.12/2026 seeking default bail before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, on 17.03.2026; however, the said bail application remains undisposed despite of bail hearing being done by learned Executive Magistrate. As a result, the accused/petitioner continues to be in custody, although he is entitled for default bail.

7. Section 187(3)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, provides that: “The Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this sub-section for a total period exceeding-

(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXV for the purposes of that Chapter.”

8. Thus, the right to default bail is not merely statutory but flows from the mandate of personal liberty and once the conditions are satisfied, the accused is entitled to be released on bail, subject to furnishing of bail bonds.

9. In view of the above and as agreed upon, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned Magistrate to consider and dispose of the bail application, numbered Bail Application No.12/2026, filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of three days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. If it is found that the statutory period has expired and no charge-sheet was filed within the prescribed time, and the accused is prepared to furnish bail bonds, the learned Magistrate/Court shall release the accused on default bail in accordance with law.

10. With above observations, this petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant