Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court

"The right to default bail under Section 187(2) BNSS is indefeasible; filing of charge sheet after expiry of 60-day period does not extinguish the accrued right", Madhya Pradesh High Court has allowed a criminal revision and directed the release of an accused under the NDPS Act on default bail, holding that court holidays falling between the 60th and 64th day of remand cannot be excluded from the mandatory remand period under Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal, setting aside an order of the Special NDPS Judge, Bhopal, delivered a comprehensive ruling settling seven distinct legal questions on computation of remand period, the irrelevance of General Clauses Act, and the absolute nature of default bail — while also sharply criticising the Special Judge for failing to follow binding precedent.

The Court framed seven precise legal questions: whether the last day falling on a Sunday or holiday counts as the 60th day; whether the date of remand is included in the 60-day period; whether General Clauses Act and Limitation Act apply to Section 187 BNSS; whether charge sheet filed on the 61st day or later due to court holidays constitutes non-compliance; whether the charge sheet can be filed before a Remand/Duty Magistrate; whether an oral application for default bail suffices; and whether merits of the case are relevant while considering default bail.

Date of Remand Included — General Clauses Act Has No Application

The Court authoritatively settled the computation controversy by relying on the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench ruling in Chaganti Satyanarayana v. State of A.P. (1986) and the subsequent reaffirmation in Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan (2024). The period of 60 days runs from the date of remand, with the date of remand itself included in the count. Section 187 BNSS is a complete code unto itself and admits of no resort to the General Clauses Act or the Limitation Act for the purpose of excluding holidays or extending deadlines.

"The provisions of General Clauses Act or the Limitation Act would not apply to Section 187 of the BNSS, hence no question arises for condonation of delay."

The Court went further and declared the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in State of M.P. v. Rustom (1995) — which had excluded the date of remand by invoking Sections 9 and 10 of the General Clauses Act — to be per incuriam, having been rendered in ignorance of the binding Constitution Bench ruling in Chaganti Satyanarayana. A per incuriam ruling carries no binding precedential value and a coordinate bench is entitled to decline to follow it.

Court Holidays Cannot Be Excluded From the Remand Period

The Court unequivocally held that the 60th day falling on a Sunday or public holiday counts as the 60th day itself — it is not extended to the next working day. This is the critical distinction between remand computation and ordinary procedural time limits. The legislative design of Section 187 BNSS is to protect personal liberty by placing an absolute ceiling on pre-charge sheet detention. Allowing the prosecution to take shelter behind court holidays to extend this period would defeat that constitutional guarantee.

Applying this computation to the facts, the Court calculated that with the date of remand on 03.11.2025 included, the 60th day fell on 01.01.2026. The courts being closed from 01.01.2026 to 04.01.2026 cannot reduce or alter that legal position. The charge sheet filed on 05.01.2026 was thus filed on the 64th day — plainly beyond the mandatory period.

"Even if the court was closed from 60th to 64th day, filing of charge sheet on 61st or 64th day can be considered as a non-compliance of mandatory provision under Section 187(3)(ii) of the BNSS."

Prosecution Could Have Filed Charge Sheet Before Duty Magistrate

The Court addressed a recurring confusion in prosecution practice: whether the charge sheet must be filed before the Special Court only. Relying on the coordinate bench ruling in Ashok Sharma v. State of M.P. (1993) and Rammu v. State of M.P. (1993), the Court held that the charge sheet can always be filed before the Remand/Duty Magistrate even when the Special Court is closed. The word "Magistrate" in Section 187 does not mean the Court of the Magistrate — it means the Magistrate as a person, who is available for remand duties regardless of whether the regular court is in session. The prosecution's plea of non-availability of a notary on the first working day after vacation was therefore wholly unacceptable as a ground for delay.

Bail Application Filed Before Charge Sheet — Right Stands Indefeasible

The Court held that the right to default bail accrues the moment the 60-day period expires without a charge sheet being filed. This right, once accrued, cannot be defeated by a subsequently filed charge sheet — even if the charge sheet is filed on the same day, provided the bail application was filed first. In the present case, the bail application was filed at 12:30 p.m. and the charge sheet at 1:00 p.m. on the same date. The sequence is determinative. Relying on the M.P. High Court's coordinate bench ruling in Raja Bhaiya Singh v. State of M.P. (2021) — confirmed as correctly decided by a Division Bench in Kalla Mallah v. State of M.P. (2022) — the Court held that the right stood crystallised at 12:30 p.m. and the subsequent filing of the charge sheet at 1:00 p.m. could not extinguish it.

"The right of the accused to be set at liberty takes precedence over the right of the State to carry on the investigation and submit a chargesheet."

Merits of Case Irrelevant — Right Is Absolute and Discretion-Free

The Court reiterated the fundamental principle that default bail is not a discretionary bail — it is a legislative mandate. The Magistrate has no power to examine the merits or gravity of the offence while considering a default bail application. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 INSC 242), the Court held that default bail applies irrespective of the nature of the offence. Even an oral application by the accused expressing readiness to furnish bail is sufficient — no formal written application is required.

"If an accused is entitled to default bail, then irrespective of merits and demerits of the case, he deserves to be granted default bail."

Special Judge Criticised for Non-Compliance With Binding Precedent

The Court reserved sharp observations for the Special NDPS Judge, Bhopal. Despite the settled and binding legal position — affirmed by a Division Bench of the same Court — the Special Judge had condoned the prosecution's delay on a mere oral prayer, without any written application and without addressing the binding precedents cited before him. The Special NDPS Court's six-page order had even mentioned the Raja Bhaiya Singh ruling but deliberately not followed it.

"Surprisingly, despite being a Special Judge of NDPS Court, the Judge has not spared any time to peruse/follow the aforesaid settled and binding legal position and on extraneous reasons, dismissed the application for grant of default bail, despite accrual of an indefeasible right to the petitioner/accused."

The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the criminal revision and set aside the Special Judge's order, directing the release of petitioner Armaan Hussain on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety, subject to conditions under Section 480(3) BNSS. The Court comprehensively answered all seven legal questions, establishing that: court holidays cannot extend the 60-day remand period; the date of remand is included in the count; General Clauses Act has no application; prosecution can file charge sheet before Duty Magistrate on holidays; oral application for default bail suffices; merits are irrelevant; and the right to default bail, once accrued before filing of charge sheet, is indefeasible and absolute.

Date of Decision: 15th April, 2026