Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the application for default and regular bail under Sections 483 and 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), holding that:
“Filing of the chargesheet without sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act does not render it incomplete under Section 193(3) of the BNSS. Consequently, the Applicant is not entitled to default bail under Section 187(3).”
The Court also refused to grant regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS due to the grave nature of the offence, the applicant’s absconding conduct, and the risk of witness tampering.
Facts
The incident occurred around midnight on 25 October 2024, when the complainant alleged that the applicant, accompanied by three co-accused, pelted stones at his house and used abusive language. The applicant allegedly had a firearm and fired shots — one at the gate and another toward the complainant. Household articles were also damaged.
The police recovered cartridges from the spot, and CCTV footage captured the event, which was shown to the complainant for identification. While three co-accused were arrested soon after, the applicant remained absconding. A chargesheet was filed on 2 January 2025 against the co-accused, noting the applicant’s evasion. The applicant was eventually arrested in a different arms case on 12 January 2025, and a supplementary chargesheet was filed against him on 14 February 2025.
His previous bail and default bail applications before the Sessions Court were rejected. He then approached the High Court.
Issues
- Whether the applicant was entitled to default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS for non-filing of a complete chargesheet.
- Whether the chargesheet, filed without sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act, was incomplete under Section 193(3) of BNSS.
- Whether the applicant could be released on regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that:
- The chargesheet filed without sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act is incomplete under Section 193(3) of BNSS.
- Cognizance taken on such an incomplete chargesheet violates the applicant’s right to default bail under Section 187(3).
- The Magistrate who took cognizance lacked jurisdiction since the investigation was incomplete.
- Filing such a premature chargesheet circumvents the safeguards under Section 187(3), which ensures release upon failure to complete investigation within 90 days.
- The applicant satisfies the triple test for bail and deserves to be released, particularly since he has roots in society and no prior convictions.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the bail and submitted that:
- The applicant was involved in a grave offence including attempt to murder and use of illegal firearms.
- The complainant directly identified the applicant as the shooter. Forensic evidence corroborates this.
- The applicant absconded for a significant time and was arrested only in another criminal case.
- Default bail is not available where a chargesheet is filed within the statutory time, even if sanction is pending.
- The Court relied on precedents where it was held that sanction is required only for taking cognizance, not for completing investigation.
Analysis of the Law
Section 187(3) of the BNSS entitles an accused to default bail if no chargesheet is filed within 90 days. However, courts have clarified that:
Filing of a final report within time, even without sanction, constitutes completion of investigation.
The Court referred to:
- Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 3 SCC 77 – Sanction is not required for filing chargesheet.
- Judgebir Singh v. NIA (2023) 17 SCC 48 – Distinction exists between investigation and cognizance; sanction is needed for cognizance, not investigation.
- Nitin Nagpal v. State (2006 SCC OnLine Del 704) – Absence of sanction under Arms Act does not make a chargesheet incomplete.
Accordingly, the petitioner’s claim for default bail was rejected.
Precedent Analysis
The Court examined and distinguished the following judgments:
- M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer (2021) 2 SCC 485 – Held that the right to default bail arises only if no valid chargesheet is filed.
- Sanjay Kumar Pundeer v. State (2023 SCC OnLine Del 5696) – Filing of incomplete chargesheet could give rise to default bail.
- Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602 – Sanction under special law does not affect general criminal proceedings unless expressly mandatory.
- Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam (2017) 15 SCC 67 – Cognizance and default bail rights are distinct; both must be satisfied for bail.
The Court clarified that these precedents do not support the applicant’s claim since the chargesheet was filed within time and sanction was not a precondition under Section 187(3).
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that:
- Sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act is required only for taking cognizance, not for filing the final report.
- The chargesheet was filed within 90 days, satisfying the statutory requirement under Section 187(3).
- The absence of sanction does not make the chargesheet incomplete.
- On the question of regular bail, the Court considered the nature of the offence, the applicant’s role, prior evasion, and the risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.
The applicant had fired at the complainant and damaged property. CCTV footage and physical evidence corroborated the allegations. The applicant was identified in the complainant’s statement under Section 180 of BNSS and was earlier absconding. His role was more grave than that of co-accused.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the application for both default bail and regular bail, holding that:
“The chargesheet filed without sanction under the Arms Act does not confer any right to default bail. Further, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant is not entitled to regular bail.”
Implications
- Reinforces that sanction under special laws is not essential to file a chargesheet, only to take cognizance.
- Clarifies that default bail under Section 187(3) of BNSS does not apply when a chargesheet is filed within the statutory time, even if incomplete in formal aspects like sanction.
- Emphasises that regular bail can be denied if the applicant’s conduct, gravity of offence, and risk of tampering are substantial — even where co-accused are treated differently.
FAQs
Q1. Can an accused claim default bail if the chargesheet is filed without sanction under the Arms Act?
No. The Delhi High Court held that the absence of sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act does not render the chargesheet incomplete for the purposes of default bail under Section 187(3) of BNSS.
Q2. Is sanction under a special law required before filing a chargesheet?
No. The Court reiterated that such sanction is required only for the court to take cognizance of the offence, not for filing the final report or completion of investigation.
Q3. What are the key grounds on which regular bail may be denied?
Nature of the offence, gravity of allegations, risk of tampering evidence or witnesses, absconding conduct, and prior criminal history are among key grounds for rejecting regular bail.
Also Read: Gujarat High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order Against Alleged Bootlegger
