Can the indefeasible right to statutory bail be defeated by the subsequent filing of the final report?
Statutory bail — Indefeasible right — Final report e-filed beyond the prescribed period — Date of filing —
Statutory bail — Indefeasible right accrued on expiry of the prescribed period —
Held: An indefeasible right to statutory bail accrues on the expiry of the prescribed period of 90 days and is not defeated by the subsequent filing of the final report. (¶9)
Statutory bail — Date of e-filing, not date of registration —
Held further: The date on which the final report was finally submitted on the e-filing portal, and not the date of its registration by the Court, is the date of filing. Petition dismissed. (¶8, 9)
Can the indefeasible right to statutory bail be defeated by the subsequent filing of the final report?
No. Once the prescribed period of 90 days expires without the final report being filed and the accused applies, the indefeasible right that has accrued in his favour cannot be defeated by the subsequent filing of the final report. Here the application for statutory bail was filed on the morning of 4 September 2025 and the final report was submitted only that evening. [¶9]
Is the date a final report is submitted on the e-filing portal, or the date the Court registers it, the date of filing?
The date of submission. The Chief Judicial Magistrate's report and the independent registration history of the e-filing number both showed the final report as finally submitted by the police at a stated time on 4 September 2025, while it was consumed by the Court the same evening, verified in October and registered only in February. The Court proceeded on the date of submission, and an earlier observation in a connected petition recording a different date did not govern once the actual date was verified. [¶7, ¶8]
What did the Madras High Court decide on the plea to cancel statutory bail?
The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed and the statutory bail granted by the Judicial Magistrate was left undisturbed, the Court finding no merit in the contention that the final report had been filed within the statutory period. [¶9, ¶10]
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
“7. The short question that arises for consideration in the present petition is as to the actual date on which the final report was e-filed. According to the respondent Police, the final report was e-filed on 01.09.2025. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court dated 10.09.2025 in a connected petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking transfer of investigation, wherein there is a reference to the filing of the final report on 02.09.2025 in E-file No.LTN20230003082C202500526. Though such an observation had been made, this Court, by order dated 04.02.2026, directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to submit a report regarding the actual date of filing of the final report. Pursuant thereto, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has submitted a report, which reads as follows:”
“9. From the above narration, it is evident that, even according to the independent analysis of the registration history, the final report in the present case was submitted by the respondent police on 04.09.2025 at 18:04:34 hours. In the meantime, the application seeking statutory bail had already been filed on the morning of 04.09.2025. In such view of the matter, the indefeasible right that had accrued in favour of the first respondent cannot be defeated by the subsequent filing of the final report. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition.”
Headnote & Points of Law
You've used your free headnotes this month
The Court's judgment is below in full, free, as always — that never changes. What needs an account is LexStreak's own work on it: the headnote, the questions this judgment settles, and the passages that decide them. A free account opens all of it again.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking cancellation of the statutory bail granted to the first respondent by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, in C.M.P.No.1692 of 2025, dated 04.09.2025.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) apperaing for the second respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.
The petitioner is the de-facto complainant. The case of the prosecution relates to an alleged dowry death.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the occurrence took place on 04.06.2025 and that there are three accused. The first respondent is the husband of the deceased, while A2 and A3 are her in-laws. Though A2 and A3 were initially granted anticipatory bail, the Hon'ble Supreme Court subsequently cancelled the same in SLP (Crl.) No.18167 of 2025, by order dated 18.05.2026, directing them to surrender before the jurisdictional Court within two weeks. Insofar as the first respondent is concerned, he was granted statutory bail on the ground that the final report had not been filed within the prescribed period. 4.1. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the final report had, in fact, been filed within the statutory period of 90 days, as could be seen from the status report filed by the respondent Police. According to the status report, the final report was filed on 01.09.2025, being the 90th day, whereas the application seeking statutory bail was filed only thereafter. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate, on the erroneous premise that 04.09.2025, being the date on which the e-filing portal reflected the filing, was the date of presentation of the final report, granted statutory bail to the first respondent. Hence, the learned counsel seeks cancellation of the bail so granted.
The said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and would submit that even according to the report submitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the final report was e-filed only on 04.09.2025 at 6.04 p.m. and not on 01.09.2025 or 02.09.2025. Therefore, it is contended that the indefeasible right to statutory bail had already been accrued in favour of the first respondent upon expiry of the statutory period of 90 days. Therefore, the subsequent filing of the final report would not defeat the vested right accrued to the accused. Hence, it is submitted that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is perfectly justified and does not warrant interference.
I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.
The short question that arises for consideration in the present petition is as to the actual date on which the final report was e-filed. According to the respondent Police, the final report was e-filed on 01.09.2025. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court dated 10.09.2025 in a connected petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking transfer of investigation, wherein there is a reference to the filing of the final report on 02.09.2025 in E-file No.LTN20230003082C202500526. Though such an observation had been made, this Court, by order dated 04.02.2026, directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to submit a report regarding the actual date of filing of the final report. Pursuant thereto, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has submitted a report, which reads as follows:
“I humbly submit that with regard to the above reference, on verification E-filing portal, it is found that the final report in Cr.No.160/2025 on the file of Manimangalam Police Station was E-filed only on 04.09.2025 at 06.04 p.m and not prior to that, i.e either on 01.09.2025 and 02.09.2025. I submitting herewith the particulars taken from the E-Filing Portal for your Honours kind perusal and I oblige.”
According to the aforesaid report, the final report was e-filed only on 04.09.2025 at 6.04 p.m., which is beyond the prescribed period of 90 days. This Court also requested the Technical Staff attached to this Court to verify the e-filing details. Pursuant thereto, the Technical Staff verified the records and reported that the registration history of e-Filing No. LTN20230003082C202500526 is as follows:- Sl. Particulars Details No. 1 E-Filing Number LTN20230003082C202500526 2 CNR Number TNKP1C0060772025 3 Finally Submitted by Police 04-09-2025 18:04:34 4 Consumed by the Court 04-09-2025 19:24:01 5 Verified by the Court (Generation of 10-10-2025 19:02:23 Filing Number/SR Number-6077/2025) 6 Date of Registration by the Court 05-02-2026
From the above narration, it is evident that, even according to the independent analysis of the registration history, the final report in the present case was submitted by the respondent police on 04.09.2025 at 18:04:34 hours. In the meantime, the application seeking statutory bail had already been filed on the morning of 04.09.2025. In such view of the matter, the indefeasible right that had accrued in favour of the first respondent cannot be defeated by the subsequent filing of the final report. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition.
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 0021.07.2026 kv
Is non-payment of a part of the sale price a ground for cancellation of a registered Sale Deed once title has passed?
2020 INSC 450 · Supreme Court of India
Does the burden to prove that property is joint property of a Hindu Undivided Family lie on the person who alleges it?
2020 INSC 327 · Supreme Court of India
Can a confession statement be used to frame charges against an accused in the absence of any other evidence?
CRL RC.2194/2023 · Madras High Court
The Supreme Court and the Madras High Court decide something every day. Read one a day.
A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.
Start reading freeOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's and the Madras High Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.
Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Headnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy