The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 23, 2025) dismissed a statutory bail plea filed by Fisal P.J, the third accused in a narcotics case registered at Angamaly Police Station. Justice K. Babu, who heard the matter, ruled that the period spent on interim medical bail cannot be treated as custody for calculating eligibility under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Fisal, aged 44, had sought release claiming he had completed the statutory custody period prescribed for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. But the court disagreed, pointing out that the law clearly differentiates between actual detention and interim release.
Background
The petitioner was arrested on February 18, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 1068/2024 of Angamaly Police Station, involving alleged offences under Sections 22(c), 8(c), and 27(a) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act - all related to narcotic possession and conspiracy.
Initially, Fisal remained in judicial custody till May 24, 2025, before being granted interim bail on medical grounds. He re-entered custody on September 9, 2025, after his interim bail period expired. The total days spent in custody, as per his counsel, exceeded the statutory limit of 180 days for offences involving commercial quantities of narcotics.
His lawyer argued that since the interim bail restricted his freedom, that period should also count as "custody" under the BNSS. The plea was backed by earlier rulings where fragmented periods of custody were considered together for default bail.
Court's Observations
Justice K. Babu, after hearing both sides and the Amicus Curiae, delved into Section 187(3) of the BNSS - the corresponding provision to Section 167(2) of the old Criminal Procedure Code. The section specifies that if an investigation is not completed within the prescribed time (90 or 180 days, depending on the offence), the accused becomes entitled to bail.
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Gautam Navlakha v. NIA (2022) and the Kerala High Court’s earlier ruling in Sabu v. CBI (2020), the bench reaffirmed that broken periods of custody can indeed be combined to determine statutory bail eligibility.
However, the key issue, as the court noted, was whether the interim bail period-when the accused was technically released-could be counted as part of custody.
"The petitioner cannot claim the benefit of custody for the time he was out on interim bail," the judge clarified. “Only actual detention, whether continuous or in two spells, can be considered for the purpose of statutory bail."
The Amicus Curiae, citing Amir Hassan Mir v. Union Territory of J&K (2022), had also submitted that temporary bail breaks the chain of detention, as the accused enjoys freedom, even if restricted by conditions.
After computation, the court found that Fisal had spent only 140 days in detention, not the required 180 days. Thus, his claim under statutory bail provisions was premature.
Decision
Holding that only the actual period of detention undergone by the accused shall be counted, the court refused to grant statutory bail to the petitioner. Justice K. Babu concluded that the period during which Fisal was on interim medical bail could not, by any legal stretch, be treated as custody under Section 187(3) of the BNSS.
"The necessary conclusion," the order stated, "is that the petitioner is not entitled to statutory bail."
Before closing, the court recorded its appreciation for Advocate K.P. Sarath, who assisted as Amicus Curiae in the matter, for his valuable contribution.
Case Title: Fisal P.J. vs State of Kerala & Another
Case Number: Bail Application No. 11634 of 2025
