Default bail accrues immediately upon expiry of investigation period if application is filed before charge sheet.

The mother of the deceased, Shivaprakash, lodged a complaint on July 15, 2025, stating that unknown individuals had fatally assaulted her son, leading to the registration of FIR No. 73/2025 by Bharathinagar Police Station under Sections 103 and 190 of BNSS.

Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2, 3, and 7 were arrested and remanded on July 17, 2025, while Petitioner/Accused No. 1 was arrested and remanded on August 26, 2025, after being deported.

The case was transferred to CID for further investigation on July 24, 2025, and on August 12, 2025, CID invoked the provisions of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act, 2000 (KCOCA).

The Special Public Prosecutor sought and obtained extensions for filing the final report under Section 22(2)(b) of KCOCA, with the Court of LXXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge initially granting 45 days on October 17, 2025, and a further 30 days on November 28, 2025.

On December 19, 2025, the High Court, in W.P. No. 31304/2025, quashed the invocation of KCOCA against Accused No. 5, Sri. Byrathi Basavaraj.

The petitioners (Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7) filed applications for default bail under Section 187(3) of BNSS at 12:00 PM on December 22, 2025, before the XLII ACJM, Bengaluru, while the preliminary charge-sheet was submitted at 5:15 PM on the same day.

The XLII ACJM, Bengaluru, rejected the default bail applications on December 26, 2025, stating that the extension orders for investigation were valid at the time they were passed, and the subsequent quashing of KCOCA invocation did not invalidate them.

This order was affirmed by the LXXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on February 2, 2026.

The State challenged the quashing of KCOCA in SLP (Cri.) No. 57/2026 before the Apex Court.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) when the application for default bail was filed before the preliminary charge-sheet on the same day, following the quashing of KCOCA invocation?

Whether the orders extending the period for investigation, passed when KCOCA was applicable, remained valid and permissible in law after the High Court quashed the invocation of KCOCA?

Whether the observations of the Apex Court in Kapil Wadhawan's case (2024) 7 SCC 147, related to the filing of default bail applications before the charge-sheet on the same day, were applicable to the present case?

The court primarily applied Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which corresponds to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), establishing the right to default bail if an investigation is not completed within 90 days for certain serious offenses.

It considered Section 22 of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act, 2000 (KCOCA), which allows for an extended period of detention beyond 90 days for investigation in KCOCA cases.

The court relied on the precedent set by the Apex Court in *M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence* (2021) 2 SCC 485, and *Enforcement Directorate, Government of India v. Kapil Wadhawan and Another* (2024) 7 SCC 147, which held that an accused acquires an indefeasible right to default bail the moment they file an application before a charge-sheet is filed, even if the charge-sheet is filed later on the same day.

Furthermore, the court referred to *Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra* (2001) 5 SCC 453, emphasizing that detention beyond the statutory period without a challan violates Article 21 of the Constitution.

The High Court reasoned that the right to default bail accrued to the petitioners on December 20, 2025, the day after the High Court quashed the invocation of KCOCA on December 19, 2025.

This quashing effectively negated the legal basis for the extended periods of investigation under KCOCA, reverting the applicable timeline to the standard 90 days under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. (Section 187(3) of BNSS).

Since the petitioners filed their default bail application at 12:00 PM on December 22, 2025, before the preliminary charge-sheet was filed at 5:15 PM on the same day, their indefeasible right to bail had crystallized based on the Supreme Court's pronouncements in *M. Ravindran* and *Kapil Wadhawan*.

The court clarified that the observations in *Kapil Wadhawan* were binding precedents, reiterating the principle that the filing of a charge-sheet subsequent to a default bail application on the same day cannot defeat the accrued right to bail.

The High Court found that the lower courts erred by focusing on the validity of the extension orders at the time they were passed, rather than acknowledging their legal inoperability once KCOCA's invocation was set aside, thereby making any further detention unlawful and violative of Article 21.

The court dismissed the State's contention that petitioners contributed to the delay, emphasizing that the time limit for investigation specified by law is absolute.

The court set aside the order dated December 26, 2025, passed by the XLII ACJM, Bengaluru, and the order dated February 2, 2026, passed by the LXXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

Consequently, the application dated December 22, 2025, filed under Section 187(3) of BNSS was allowed, and Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7 were directed to be released on bail subject to specific conditions.

The High Court explicitly stated that this order granting default bail was subject to any future orders passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 57/2026.