S.187 BNSS | Period Of Release On Interim Bail Not To Be Computed As 'Detention Period' For Granting Statutory Bail: Kerala High Court

Justice K. Babu observed that only the actual period of detention undergone can be considered, adding together continuous or broken periods of custody.

“An accused person is entitled to be released on statutory bail by adding the truncated periods of detention suffered by him. I have no doubt in concluding 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,” the Court observed.

The petitioner was booked for offences under Sections 22(c), 8(c) and 27(a) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. He approached the High Court seeking statutory bail by invoking Section 187 BNSS read with Section 36A(4) NDPS Act.

The petitioner had undergone custody for a total of 140 days in two instances. The petitioner was arrested on 18.02.2025. At the first instance, he remained in judicial custody till 24.05.2025. On 24.05.2025, he was granted interim bail on medical grounds and he remained on interim bail till 09.09.2025. His counsel said that the petitioner seeks statutory bail, contending that the period during which he was granted interim bail is also be treated as custody as he had not enjoyed the benefit of absolute liberty. 

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Gautam Navlakha v. NIA and the Kerala High Court decision in Sabu v. CBI [2020 (3) KLT 710] to decide whether broken period of detention can be computed together to decide whether statutory bail can be granted. It also looked into Section 187(3) of the BNSS (corresponding Section 167 CrPC).

The amicus curiae in the case referred to the J&K High Court's decision in Amir Hassan Mir v. UT of J & K and submitted that the period of release under temporary bail cannot be treated as in detention or custody.

The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that only when the continuous or broken periods of custody pieced together reaches the requisite period; default bail becomes the right of the detained person. It was submitted that only the actual custody undergone by the accused will be counted for computing the period for default bail. He submitted that the petitioner has remained in detention only for 140 days, therefore, he is not entitled to statutory bail. 

Agreeing with the same, the Court dismissed the bail application.

Case No: Bail Appl. No. 11634 of 2025

Case Title: Fisal P.J. v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 674

Counsel for the petitioner: M.G. Sreejith, Vidyajith M., Swapnalekha K.T., Anjana A.

Counsel for the respondents: G. Sudheer – Public Prosecutor

Amicus Curiae: Sarath K.P.

Click to Read/Download Judgment