Only Actual Custody Counts For Police Remand U/S 187 BNSS, Not Period Spent On Interim Bail: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has clarified that only the period during which an accused is in actual custody can be counted for the purpose of computing the maximum permissible period of police remand under Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and that time spent on interim bail cannot be treated as custody.
Justice Prateek Jalan referred to Kerala High Court judgment in Fisal PJ v. State of Kerala (2025) where it was held that the period during which the accused person was released on temporary/interim bail should not be computed for the purpose of reckoning the period for statutory bail, as only the actual period of detention undergone by the accused need be counted for.
“I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Kerala High Court in Fisal PJ, that only the period of actual custody would count towards reckoning of time under Section 187(2) of BNSS. Such an interpretation is, in my view, consistent with the plain language of the statute, as also the judgments referred to above,” the judge observed.
Reliance was also placed on Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency (2022), where the Supreme Court, in the context of Section 167 of CrPC, referred to “piecing up” broken periods of custody, for determining the individual's entitlement to default bail.
The Court was dealing with the plea of a murder accused, aggrieved by cancellation of his interim medical bail by the Sessions Court on the ground that period of interim bail would “eat up” the major portion of the days on which IO may apply for grant of police custody remand.
Petitioner argued that the period of release on temporary bail would not be added while computing the period of detention under Section 187 of the BNSS and therefore, release on interim bail would not restrict the period during which his police remand could be sought.
Agreeing, the High Court held, “There was no basis for suggesting that the period available to the prosecution to seek remand in police custody, would lapse if the applicant remained on interim bail on medical grounds…Properly understood, the aforesaid period would be excluded altogether from the computation of the time available for police custody to be sought under Section 187(2) of BNSS.”
As such, the Court set aside the impugned order of the Sessions Court and restored the earlier order granting eight weeks' interim bail.
Appearance: Dr. Alok, Ms. Smriti Walia, Mr. Dhananjay Mittal, Mr. Shivam, Ms. Aanchal Budhiraja, Mr. Mayank Deswal, Mr. Arjan Verma, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP with Insp Sanjeev Kumar, PS: Punjabi Bagh. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate [Amicus Curiae] with Mr. Shreedhar, Mr. Sukrit Seth, Ms. Radhika Yadav and Ms. Ananya Sharma, Advocates for Respondent
Case title: Neeraj Kumar v. State
Case no.: BAIL APPLN. 190/2026