I had a post on him a few months ago:
***
I have seen it argued that if he had surrendered to the British in 1945, they would not have dared to execute him because that would lead to a violent popular uprising. It would make the reaction to the INA trials of OTL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army_trials look very mild indeed. It's not that Indians agreed with Bose's decision to align himself with the Axis; but even Gandhi, who had clashed with him on numerous occasions called him a "patriot of patriots" even though "misguided."
https://books.google.com/books?id=njdwCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT51 See Nirad C. Chaudhuri,
Autobiography of an Unknown Indian:
"After the Japanese defeat in Burma all his hopes vanished. That seems to have destroyed all power of rational thinking in him. If he had been a calculating politician he would have surrendered to the British forces like his INA followers and put the British authorities in a most difficult position. Logically, and consistently with what the victorious Allied Powers were doing to German and Japanese politicians and commanders, they should have tried Subhas Bose for treason and at least kept him in prison. But in India that would have led to disturbances on a scale far wider and more violent than those brought about by the INA trials, and that could have ended only in a bloody British victory or an ignominious surrender for them, both equally barren politically. Or the British authorities could have set him free after his capture and left him unopposed in his political activities. That, too, would not have been much better than trying him, for it would have exposed to the world the double standard followed in punishing the Germans and the Japanese on the one hand and letting off their Indian collaborators.
"And in the disgrace, not only the British authorities in India but even the British Government at home would have become involved. If Bose had been captured, a decision regarding his fate would have had to be taken by the British Government in London instead of being left to the demoralized British administration in India. From such a decision, taken at such a level and concerning such a personage, there could have been no retreat. Neither concealment nor pretence would have been possible.
"The death of Subhas Bose saved the British authorities from having to face such a problem, and for this they should have been grateful to his irrationality..."
https://books.google.com/books?id=TgWnS1r6x8IC&pg=PT904&lpg=PT904
Anyway, if the British don't dare to execute Subhas Chandra Bose, he
will eventually be freed--if not by the British, by the Indian National Congress once it comes to power. And remember that even if he isn't liberated until 1947, he will only be 50 years old, and could be a powerful influence in the politics of independent India.
***
To that post I would like to add one caveat: he would still be a controversial figure within the INC. They will insist on his liberation (or at least a guarantee that he won't be executed--which means liberation after independence) as a condition for negotiations with the British--Indian public opinion demanded this. But that doesn't mean that once freed he would be universally revered. It was easy enough for people in the INC who had often been his opponents during his life to praise him to the skies after his death. So I don't know if his posthumous position as a revered national hero actually tells us how well he would do in Indian politics if he had lived.