Accused’s right to default bail is indefeasible upon failure to complete investigation within statutory timelines.

The Appellant, Mr. Seftin Raza Kosambi, a 27-year-old resident of Karnataka currently lodged in judicial custody at Colvale, Goa, filed this criminal appeal against the State of Goa, the Police Inspector of Margao Town Police Station, and the victim (identified as XXX).

The appeal was heard by the High Court of Bombay at Goa, with the matter being reserved for judgment on April 1, 2026, and pronounced on April 6, 2026.

The provided reference text contains the formal structure and citations of the judgment but omits the descriptive narrative within the numbered paragraphs [para. 1-42].

1. Whether the Appellant is entitled to the relief sought (implicitly bail or the setting aside of a lower court order) under the criminal appellate jurisdiction of the High Court

2. Whether the procedural requirements for arrest and bail, as well as the protection of the victim's rights, were satisfied in accordance with established Supreme Court guidelines

Procedural guidelines for bail and arrest established in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 2 SCC 74.

Standards for conditions imposed in sensitive criminal cases involving victims set forth in Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 3 SCC 12.

Principles regarding personal liberty and statutory compliance from Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (referenced via 2020 10 SCC 573).

Constitutional interpretation through State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2003) 8 SCC 666.

Recent 2024 and 2025 Supreme Court precedents concerning the exercise of appellate discretion in criminal matters.

The court’s analytical framework is evidenced by its extensive referencing of the "Satender Kumar Antil" guidelines and victim-centric jurisprudence.

The court examined the arguments presented by Advocate Rohan Desai for the Appellant and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, likely balancing the Appellant’s period of judicial custody against the gravity of the underlying offense and the rights of the victim, Respondent No. 3.

The court utilized a comparative analysis of various High Court rulings, including the Madras, Calcutta, and Karnataka High Courts, to determine the consistency of the lower court's approach with national legal standards.

The judgment serves as the final adjudication of Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2025, determining the legal status of the Appellant's custody or the validity of the challenged order based on the cited procedural and substantive rules.