E-filing of final report beyond statutory period cannot defeat the accrued indefeasible right to default bail.

The petitioner (de-facto complainant) sought the cancellation of statutory bail granted to the first respondent (husband of the deceased) in a case involving an alleged dowry death (Crime No.160 of 2025).

The Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, granted statutory bail on 04.09.2025, observing that the final report had not been filed within the mandatory 90-day period.

The petitioner challenged this, asserting that the police status report indicated the final report was filed on the 90th day (01.09.2025).

To resolve the discrepancy regarding the filing date, the High Court solicited a report from the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) and technical staff regarding the e-filing portal records.

1. Whether the final report was filed within the statutory period of 90 days to preclude the accrual of the right to default bail.

2. Whether the e-filing timestamp or the physical preparation date determines the date of presentation of the final report.

Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 439(2) of the CrPC), regarding the power to cancel bail.

The core legal principle applied is the "indefeasible right" to statutory (default) bail, which accrues to an accused if the investigative agency fails to file a final report within the prescribed 90-day period. Once an application for default bail is filed after the expiry of the period but before the final report is submitted, the right is "vested" and cannot be defeated by the subsequent filing of the charge sheet.

The High Court scrutinized the electronic registration history of the e-filing portal (E-file No. LTN20230003082C202500526) to determine the exact moment of submission.

While the petitioner claimed filing on 01.09.2025, the CJM’s report and technical verification confirmed that the police only “finally submitted” the report on 04.09.2025 at 18:04:34 (6:04 PM).

The accused had already filed the application for statutory bail on the morning of 04.09.2025.

The court reasoned that since the bail application preceded the electronic submission of the final report on the same day—and both occurred after the 90-day window—the “indefeasible right” had already matured in favor of the accused and could not be retroactively extinguished.

Therefore, the Judicial Magistrate’s order granting statutory bail was legally sound and did not warrant interference.

The Criminal Original Petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed.