ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE, vs STATE OF KERALA,

BA No.1503/2026
2026:KER:37508
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
ST
MONDAY, THE 1 DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1948
BAIL APPL. NO. 1503 OF 2026
CRIME NO.789/2025 OF Adhur Police Station, Kasaragod
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2026 IN CRMP NO.7 OF 2026 OF
SESSIONS court, KASARAGOD
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 and 4:
1 ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE,
AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O ABDULLA, RESIDING AT BIYARAM HOUSE,
SIRIBAGILU P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671124
2 ABDUL ROUF M.,
AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O MUHAMMED M., BOOD HOUSE,
PATLA, MADHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671124
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.ANAS MUHAMMED SHAMNAD
SHRI.SALEEK.C.A.
SRI.C.C.ANOOP
SRI.T.U.SUJITH KUMAR
SRI.SARUN RAJAN
SHRI.HAMDAN MANSOOR K.
SHRI.P.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ADHUR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671453

BA No.1503/2026
2026:KER:37508
:2:
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.M.C. ASHI, SR. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.05.2026, THE COURT ON 01.06.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BA No.1503/2026
2026:KER:37508
:3:
“C.R.”
ORDER

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS), seeking regular bail.
2. The applicants are the accused Nos. 1 and 4 in Crime
No.789/2025 of Adhur Police Station, Kasaragod District. The offences
alleged are punishable under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act).
3. The prosecution allegation in short is that on 30/12/2025 at
19.00 hrs, the applicants and the accused No.5 were found in possession
of 4.22 grams of MDMA, which was kept for personal use and sale at the
building bearing No.X111/302A of Heaven Homestay situated at Koppala
in Adhur Panchayat, in violation of the NDPS Act and thereby committed
the offences.
4. I have heard Sri.K.K.Dheerendrakrishnan, the learned counsel
for the applicants and Sri.M.C.Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
Perused the case diary.
5. The applicants sought bail on various grounds. However, at
the time of the hearing, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted
that the applicants are entitled to default bail since the final report was
filed beyond sixty days of the applicants' arrest. The argument was
confined to the said point.

BA No.1503/2026
2026:KER:37508
:4:
6. The applicants have been in custody since 30/12/2025. The
investigation is over, and the final report was electronically filed on
28/2/2026. However, the physical copy of the final report was forwarded
to the trial court only on 2/3/2026. The learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that since the offence under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act
carries a maximum punishment of ten years with fine, but with no
minimum punishment, the investigation should have been completed
and the final report should have been filed within a period of sixty days,
i.e., on or before 28/2/2026. The learned counsel further submitted that
though the final report was submitted by way of e-filing on 28/2/2026,
the physical copy was forwarded to the court, and the court acted upon it
only on 2/3/2026, which is beyond sixty days of the arrest of the
applicants, and hence they are entitled to default bail. On the other
hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the
investigation has been completed within sixty days, and the final report

has been filed on the sixtieth day, i.e., 28/2/2026, electronically. The
learned counsel further submitted that the date of filing of the final
report through e-filing mode has to be reckoned for computing the period
of limitation under Section 187(3)(ii) of the BNSS and Rule 13 of the
Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 (for short, the Electronic
Filing Rules). The learned Senior Public Prosecutor also submitted that
since the punishment provided for the offence under Section 22(b) of the
NDPS Act may extend to ten years, the statutory period prescribed for

BA No.1503/2026
2026:KER:37508
:5:
filing the final report is ninety days and not sixty days as per Section
187(3)(ii) of the BNSS.
7. Bail serves as a mechanism to ensure that the liberty
guaranteed to a person under Article 21 of the Constitution is not
arbitrarily curtailed before conviction. The default bail under Section 187
of BNSS (Section 167 of Cr.PC) is the right every accused holds when the
investigating agency fails to complete the investigation within the
statutorily prescribed period. It is not merely a statutory right, but a
fundamental right granted to an accused person. The Supreme Court has
tied it to Article 21 in a line of cases and repeatedly described it as
‘indefeasible’.
8. Clause (a) of the first proviso to Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C,
which provided for the release of a person on default bail, now stands
replaced by Section 187(3) of the BNSS. As per clause (a)(i) of the first
proviso to Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C, when a person is accused of an
offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for
a term of not less than ten years, the investigation of the case must be
completed within ninety days to prevent the accused from being
released on bail. Significantly, the expression, “imprisonment for a term
of not less than ten years” occurring in clause (a)(i) of the first proviso to
Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C now stands replaced with “imprisonment for a
term of ten years or more” in Section 187(3)(i) of the BNSS. So, the
crucial question that arises is whether the effect of new terminology in

BA No.1503/2026
2026:KER:37508
:6:
the place of “……for a term not less than ten years…” to “….for a term of
ten years or more” makes any difference in the application of ninety
days period to different offences under the BNSS?
9. The expression, “imprisonment for a term of not less than ten
years” occurring in clause (a)(i) of the first proviso to Section 167(2) of
Cr.P.C had come up for interpretation before the Supreme Court in
Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam [(2017) 15 SCC 67]. In that case,
the offence alleged against the accused was under Section 13(1) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is punishable with
“imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than four years but
which may extend to ten years" and fine. The final report in that case
was filed after the expiry of the period of sixty days, but before
completing the period of ninety days of custody by the accused. The
majority view of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra) was
that the words "not less than" occurring in clause (i) to proviso (a) of
Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C must be given their natural and obvious
meaning, which is to say, not below a minimum threshold, and these
words must relate to an offence punishable with a minimum of ten years
imprisonment. It was held that the words "not less than ten years"
obviously meant that the punishment should be ten years or more, and it
cannot include offences where the maximum punishment is ten years. It
was concluded that, in all cases where the minimum sentence is less
than ten years but the maximum sentence is not death or life

BA No.1503/2026
2026:KER:37508
:7:
imprisonment, then Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Cr.P.C would apply, and
the accused would be entitled to a grant of default bail after sixty days in
case a charge-sheet is not filed and that Section 167(2)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C
would apply only in cases where the offence alleged against the accused
is punishable with (i) death and any lower sentence; (ii) with life
imprisonment and any lower sentence, or (iii) with a minimum sentence
of imprisonment for a period of ten years.
10. A Single Bench of this Court in Mohammed Sajjid v. State of
Kerala (2025 (2) KLT 73) has examined the effect of substituting the
expression “imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years”
occurring in clause (a)(i) of the first proviso to Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C as
“imprisonment for a term of ten years or more” in Section 187(3)(i) of
the BNSS. The learned Single Judge compared the phraseology used in
Section 187(3)(i) of BNSS as well as the phraseology used in Section
167(2)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C and concluded that, even for offences punishable
up to 10 years, the concept of statutory bail will be available on
completion of 60 days, if the final report has not been filed. In coming to
the above conclusion, the learned Single Judge observed that the dictum
laid down by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra) is equally
applicable to Section 187(3) of the BNSS also. Another Single Judge in
Athul v. State of Kerala (2025 KHC 1934) followed Mohammed Sajjid
(supra) and held that the words 'imprisonment for a term of ten years or
more' in Section 187(3)(i) of BNSS do indicate that there must be a

BA No.1503/2026
2026:KER:37508
:8:
minimum sentence of imprisonment of ten years and not a period of
imprisonment up to ten years. The offence involved in both the above
cases was under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act, which carries a
punishment of ten years with a fine. It was concluded in both cases that
the statutory bail will accrue for offences under Section 22(b) of the
NDPS Act if the accused had been in custody for more than sixty days
without the investigation being completed. The Karnataka High Court
(State of Karnataka by Kavoor Police Station v. Kalandar Shafi,
2024 KHC OnLine 5417) also took a similar view and held that the
expression “ten years or more” in Section 187(3) of the BNSS only
depicts a threshold sentence of ten years.
11. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, Sri. M.C.Ashi
submitted that if there is no difference between the meaning of the
expressions "not less than ten years" and “ten years or more”, there was
no need for the legislature to replace the words “imprisonment for a term
of not less than ten years” in clause (a)(i) of the first proviso to Section
167(2) of Cr.P.C, with the words “imprisonment for a term of ten years or
more” in Section 187(3)(i) of the BNSS. According to the learned
Prosecutor, though in Mohammed Sajjid (supra) and Athul (supra), this
Court had held that statutory bail will accrue for offence under Section
22(b) of the NDPS Act if the final report is not filed within sixty days from
the date of custody, the said dictum requires reconsideration as the
wording in Section 187 BNSS 2023, and Section 167 of Cr.P.C are

BA No.1503/2026
2026:KER:37508
:9:
different. Reliance was also placed on another Single Bench judgment of
this Court in Sayyad S.A v State of Kerala (2025 (6) KHC 591) in which it
was held that when the offence of dacoity which is punishable with
imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may
extend to ten years under Section 310(2) of BNS, is under investigation,
the right to statutory bail accrues as per Section 187(3)(i) of BNSS on
completion of ninety days from the date of custody.
12. The distinction between the sixty-day and ninety-day
timeframes arises from the recognition that graver offences necessitate
a more comprehensive investigation. A longer period enables the
investigating agency to gather adequate evidence without the undue
pressure of rigid deadlines. Conversely, offences punishable with
imprisonment up to ten years are presumed to involve comparatively
simpler inquiries, warranting a shorter period for filing the charge-sheet.
This classification seeks to balance the liberty of the accused with the
State’s interest in effective law enforcement—ensuring that detention is
not prolonged unnecessarily, while allowing sufficient time for
investigation in serious cases.
13. A plain reading of proviso (a)(i) to Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C
and Section 187(3)(i) of the BNSS reveals that, under the former, the
threshold was offences punishable with imprisonment “for a term not
less than ten years,” thereby attracting the ninety-day limit. The newly
enacted BNSS retains this concept: Section 187(3)(i) continues to require

BA No.1503/2026
2026:KER:37508
:10:
that, for the ninety-day period to apply, the offence must be punishable
with imprisonment of ten years or more. In substance, therefore, proviso
(a)(i) to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C and Section 187(3)(i) BNSS are aligned,
with only minor changes in phraseology. The sixty-day and ninety-day
framework remains intact, reflecting legislative adherence to the same
rationale. The principle that default bail is linked to the seriousness of the
offence stands unchanged. Indeed, the distinction crystallised in Rakesh
Kumar Paul (supra) has been carried forward into Section 187(3) BNSS.
14. In Sayyad S.A. (supra), the Court dealt with an offence
under Section 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, punishable
with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment up to ten years. By
contrast, Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act prescribes imprisonment up to
ten years but does not provide for life imprisonment. Where the
punishment includes life imprisonment, the case squarely falls within
Section 187(3)(i) BNSS, thereby permitting detention up to ninety days
for statutory bail. Hence, the dictum in Sayyad S.A. (supra) is inapplicable
to the present facts. For these reasons, I find no ground to reconsider the
principles laid down in Mohammed Sajjid (supra) and Athul (supra).
15. The conclusion that emerges is that the ninety-day
benchmark for default bail applies only where the offence carries: (a) the
death penalty, (b) imprisonment for life, or (c) a minimum sentence of
ten years. The offences punishable with imprisonment that may extend
up to ten years, but without a minimum threshold, fall within the

BA No.1503/2026
2026:KER:37508
:11:
sixty-day category. Inasmuch as the offence under Section 22(b) of the
NDPS Act provides for a maximum punishment of ten years with fine, but
stipulates no minimum term, the statutory right to bail accrues if the
final report is not filed within sixty days from the date of custody.
16. As stated already, the applicants were arrested and
remanded to judicial custody on 30/12/2025. The final report was filed
electronically on 28/02/2026, which was the sixtieth day. A report was
called for from the trial court, wherein it is stated that the final report
was e-filed on 28/02/2026 at 6:02 p.m.
17. Rule 13 of the Electronic Filing Rules governs the
computation of limitation where filing is effected through electronic
mode. Sub-rule (1) stipulates that, wherever limitation under the
Limitation Act, 1963 or under any other law in force applies to an
“Action,” it is the responsibility of the e-filer to electronically file such
Action within the prescribed period of limitation. Rule 2(b) defines
“Action” broadly to include all proceedings instituted in courts, such as
suits, criminal complaints, appeals, revision petitions, writ petitions, writ
appeals, contempt petitions, execution petitions, arbitration proceedings,
probate cases, caveats, bail applications and interlocutory applications.
Sub-rule (2) of Rule 13 further clarifies that, for the purpose of computing
limitation, the date of electronic filing shall be reckoned as the date on
which the Action is electronically received in the Registry within the
prescribed time (Indian Standard Time), as per the relevant Acts, Rules,

BA No.1503/2026
2026:KER:37508
:12:
and orders issued from time to time.
18. The Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, 1982 (for short,
“Criminal Rules of Practice”) regulate the procedure in subordinate
criminal courts in the State. Rule 4 prescribes the office hours of the
courts, which shall remain open on all working days from 10:30 a.m. to
5:00 p.m., or during such other hours as may be notified by the High
Court. Rule 5 prescribes the sitting hours of the courts, which are from
11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with an interval not exceeding one hour.
19. A conjoint reading of Rules 13(1) and 13(2) of the Electronic
Filing Rules with Rules 4 and 5 of the Criminal Rules of Practice makes it
evident that, for the purpose of computing limitation, electronic filings
received up to 5:00 p.m. shall be treated as instituted on that day. While
a party may electronically file an Action even after 5:00 p.m., such filing
shall, for the purpose of limitation, be deemed to have been instituted
only on the next working day.
As already noted, the final report in the present case was e-filed
on 28/02/2026 at 6:02 p.m. In terms of the applicable rules, such a filing,
having been made after 5:00 p.m., must be reckoned as instituted only
on 01/03/2026. Consequently, for the purpose of computing limitation,
the filing falls beyond the statutory period of sixty days from the date of
remand of the applicants. The applicants are, therefore, entitled to
statutory bail. Accordingly, they shall be released on bail subject to the
following conditions:-

BA No.1503/2026
2026:KER:37508
:13:
(i) The applicants shall be released on bail on executing a
bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with two solvent
sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional
Magistrate/Court.
(ii) The applicants shall not commit any offence of a like
nature while on bail.
(iii) The applicants shall not attempt to contact any of the
prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any
other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or
other persons related to the investigation.
(iv) The applicants shall not leave the State of Kerala
without the permission of the trial Court.
(v) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of the bail
conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating the bail
conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional court.
Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
Rp

BA No.1503/2026
2026:KER:37508
:14:
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 1503 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN
CRIME NO.789/2025, DATED 31.12.2025 OF THE
ADHUR POLICE STATION
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE SECTION 57 REPORT, DATED
02.01.2026 SUBMITTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF
POLICE, ADHUR POLICE STATION BEFORE THE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADHUR POLICE STATION
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY THE ORDER DATED 19.01.2026 IN
CRL.M.P. NO.01/2026 ON THE FILES OF THE
HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.01.2026 IN
CRL.M.P. NO.02/2026 ON THE FILES OF THE
HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2026 IN
CRL.M.P. NO.03/2026 ON THE FILES OF THE
HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD
Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2026 IN
CRL.M.P. NO.06/2026 ON THE FILES OF THE
HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD
Annexure A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2026 IN
CRL.M.P. NO.7/2026 ON THE FILES OF THE
HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD