(2026:JHHC:17254) 1 Cr. M.P. No.1650 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1650 of 2026 ------ Deepak Kumar, aged about 21 years, S/o Kameshwar Saw, R/o- P.O. & P.S. Keredari, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Ms. Jyoti Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to set aside the order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh in Criminal Revision No.25 of 2026 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh dismissed the said Criminal Revision No.25 of 2026 filed challenging the order dated 20.04.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ramgarh in connection with Gola P.S. Case No.18 of 2026 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ramgarh rejected the prayer of the petitioner to be released on default bail in terms of Section 187 (3) (i) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 merely because charge-sheet was not (2026:JHHC:17254) 2 Cr. M.P. No.1650 of 2026 submitted against the petitioner within sixty one (61) days of his being in judicial custody. 3. The undisputed fact remains that in the meanwhile charge-sheet has already been submitted against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Section 310 (2) of the B.N.S, 2023. 4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was arrested in connection with Gola P.S. Case No.18 of 2026 for having in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons committed robbery on a Highway after sunset and before sunrise punishable under section 309 (4) of the BNS, 2023 providing for Rigorous Imprisonment for fourteen (14) years. Though the petitioner was in custody since 18.02.2026, yet charge-sheet was not submitted by police till 20.04.2026; that is on the 61st day of his being in judicial custody. The petitioner filed a petition to be released on bail on the ground that charge-sheet was not submitted even after sixty (60) days but the same did not find favour with the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ramgarh. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ramgarh considered that the verbatim of Clause (a) (i) of Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. mandated that a Magistrate may authorize detention of an accused in custody for a total period up to ninety (90) days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten (10) years and the corresponding provision of Clause (a) (i) of Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. being Section 187 (3) (i) of B.N.S.S., 2023 authorizes a Magistrate to detain an accused (2026:JHHC:17254) 3 Cr. M.P. No.1650 of 2026 person up to ninety (90) days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of ten (10) years or more. Hence, the learned Judicial Magisrate-1st Class, Ramgarh was of the considered view that since the Magistrate was authorized to detain the petitioner up to ninety (90) days so, mere non-submission of the charge-sheet on 61st day, will not entitle the petitioner to default bail and accordingly, rejected the petition for default bail filed by the petitioner. The petitioner along with some of the co-accused persons filed Criminal Revision No.25 of 2026 in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh. The learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh concurred with the view of the learned Judicial Magistrate and also considered that in fact the investigation was going on for the offence punishable under Section 310 (2) of the B.N.S, 2023 as the involvement of the total number of accused of the case was five or more and Section 310 (2) of the B.N.S, 2023 provides for maximum punishment for imprisonment of life also. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh did not find any merit in the Criminal Revision and dismissed the same. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2009 of 2017 along with Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2176 of 2017 wherein the majority view expressed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta was that the (2026:JHHC:17254) 4 Cr. M.P. No.1650 of 2026 interpretation of the words “for a term not less than ten years” occurring in Section 167 (2) (a) (i) of the Cr.P.C. means the offences punishable with minimum sentence of ten years. Therefore, in all cases where the minimum sentence is less than ten years but maximum sentence is not death or life imprisonment then Section 167 (2) (a) (ii) of Cr.P.C. will apply and the accused will be entitled to grant of bail after sixty (60) days in case charge-sheet is not filed. 6. It is pertinent to mention here that the dissenting view of Justice Prafulla C. Pant in the said judgment. His lordship in paragraph-20 of his judgment opined that the intention of the legislature was that if an offence was punishable with imprisonment up to ten years then it falls within the provision of Section 167 (2) (a) (i) of Cr.P.C. and the permissible period for investigation is ninety (90) days and Justice Pant further went on to add that since the expression ‘not less than ten years’ has caused ambiguity in the interpretation, the best course for the legislature would be to clear its intention by using appropriate words. Probably taking a cue from the same in the corresponding provision of Section 167, the ambiguity in the interpretation has been clarified by using the word under Section 187 (3) (i) of the B.N.S.S, 2023 that the Magistrate can authorize detention of an accused up to ninety (90) days in case of any offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of ten years or more and did not repeat the ambiguous words “not less than ten years” as existing in Section 167 (2) (a) (i) of Cr.P.C. (2026:JHHC:17254) 5 Cr. M.P. No.1650 of 2026 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the common judgment of the learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Kalandar Shafi & Others passed in Cr. Petition No.13459 of 2024 dated 13.12.2024 as also the Writ Petition No.33526 of 2024 in the case of Hyder Ali vs. State of Karnataka, wherein the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has opined that a slight tweak in the new regime in Section 187 (3) of B.N.S.S. in juxtaposition to Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. has not changed the purpose of the provision. The phraseology of the words ‘ten years or more’ found in sub-clause (i) of Section 187 (3) (i) of the B.N.S.S, the minimum threshold punishment imposable in respect of an offence under the B.N.S., 2023 should be ten years and in that case as the offence involved were punishable under Section 190, 308 (2), 308 (5), 351 (2) and 352 of the B.N.S., the Karnataka High Court observed that the offences involved in that case does not bear the minimum threshold and sentence of ten years, but is extendable to an extent of ten years, which would mean, discretion is available to the concerned Court to impose punishment up to ten years. Therefore, the minimum threshold is not ten years. So, the completion of the investigation in a punishment which is up to ten years is undoubtedly sixty (60) days. So, the investigation is to be completed within sixty (60) days. Hence, it is submitted that even after coming into force of Section 187 (3) (i) of the B.N.S.S., 2023, the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam (supra) still holds the field and (2026:JHHC:17254) 6 Cr. M.P. No.1650 of 2026 as the charge-sheet has not been submitted within sixty (60) days, the petitioner is entitled for default bail. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 8. Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court failed to take note of the observations made by the dissenting judgment of Justice Prafulla C. Pant in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam (supra) wherein Justice Pant has, in no uncertain manner, added that the best course for the legislature would be to clear its intention by using appropriate words and in Section 187 (3) (i) of B.N.S.S., 2023, the legislature has cleared its intention that the period up to which the Magistrate is authorized to detain an accused in custody without submission of charge-sheet is ninety (90) days if the offence in respect of which the investigation inter alia relates is punishable with an imprisonment for a term of ten (10) years or more. It is then submitted that since in this case the punishment provided for is fourteen (14) years, therefore, even assuming for the sake of arguments that the investigation of the case was for the offence punishable under Section 309 (4) of B.N.S., 2023 relating to commission of a robbery on a Highway after sunset and before sunrise, and not for the offence of Dacoity punishable under section 310(2) of the B.N.S., 2023; the maximum sentence was fourteen (14) years in the facts of this case in respect of the offence punishable Section 309 (4) of B.N.S., 2023 that is (2026:JHHC:17254) 7 Cr. M.P. No.1650 of 2026 in excess of ten (10) years. So, without submission of the charge-sheet, the Magistrate was authorized to detain the petitioner in connection with this case till 90th day. It is next submitted that the additional undisputed fact is that by the 60th day during the course of the investigation, the offence involved in respect of which the investigation was going on made out to be the occurrence of Dacoity, punishable under Section 310 (2) of B.N.S., 2023 as five or more persons were found by that date to be involved in the alleged offence, which inter alia provides for punishment of imprisonment for life. So, otherwise also, the authority of the Magistrate was to detain the petitioner for a period up to ninety (90) days and the undisputed fact remains that in the meanwhile charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Section 310 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to default bail merely because the charge-sheet was not submitted by the 61st day of his detention. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ramgarh or the learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh in passing the orders impugned in this criminal miscellaneous petition. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to refer to the dissenting judgment of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam (2026:JHHC:17254) 8 Cr. M.P. No.1650 of 2026 (supra). In para-20 of that dissenting judgment his lordship, in no uncertain manner has added that since the expression “not less than ten years” has caused ambiguity in interpretation, the best course for the legislature would be to clear its intention by using the appropriate words. In that context, the change of words from ‘not less than ten years’ as mentioned in Section 167 (2) (a) (i) of the Cr.P.C. with the words ‘imprisonment for a term of ten years or more’ as appear in Section 187 (3) (i) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is to be considered and because of the unambiguous use of the words ‘imprisonment for a term of ten years or more’ in Section 187 (3) (i) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after coming into force of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Magistrate is authorized to detain the accused person up to the period of ninety (90) days, in case the investigation relates to an offence punishable inter alia with imprisonment for a term of ten year or more. So, in this respect, this Court is not persuaded by the contrary view taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Kalandar Shafi & Others as also in the case of Hyder Ali vs. State of Karnataka (supra). 10. Now, coming to the facts of the case; the undisputed fact remains that the investigation in this case relates to Highway robbery which took place after sunset and before sunrise. The undisputed fact remains that the said offence is punishable with Rigorous Imprisonment for fourteen (14) years that is ten (10) years or more. So even assuming for (2026:JHHC:17254) 9 Cr. M.P. No.1650 of 2026 the sake of arguments that by the 61st day, there was no material that the offence in respect of which investigation was going on, was in respect of Dacoity punishable under Section 310 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023; still since the offence involved Rigorous Imprisonment for fourteen (14) years, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Magistrate was authorized for detention of the petitioner without the charge-sheet being filed up to the 90th day. So, the rejection of the prayer of the petitioner for default bail on the 61st day by the Magistrate or the consequential dismissal of the Criminal Revision No.25 of 2026, in the considered opinion of this Court cannot be termed as illegal warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. But there is an additional ground also and that is by the 60th day, the investigation was in respect of the offence of Dacoity punishable under Section 310 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and not under Section 309 (4) of the B.N.S., 2023 and inter alia Section 310 (2) B.N.S., 2023 provides for punishment of imprisonment of life. So, on this score also, no illegality has been committed in the impugned orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ramgarh or the learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh. Hence, on this score also, the impugned orders do not warrant interference of this Court in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (2026:JHHC:17254) 10 Cr. M.P. No.1650 of 2026 11. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 15th of June, 2026 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 17/06/2026