Does an Incomplete Chargesheet Set Entitle an Accused to Default Bail? Supreme Court Say No
Supreme Court Holds Non-Filing or Delayed Supply of Additional Chargesheet Copies Does Not Create a Right to Default Bail
Facts
The Central Bureau of Investigation registered an FIR concerning an alleged cybercrime network that used impersonation, forged documents, digital-arrest scams, customs fraud and phishing attacks to transfer money into mule bank accounts. Bank officials were also alleged to have facilitated the opening and operation of such accounts using forged KYC documents.
According to the CBI, the bank account of SP Cargo and Courier Services Pvt. Ltd., operated by Sudhir Palande, was used as a mule account. On 2 July 2025, approximately ₹3.81 crore was allegedly credited to this account and subsequently transferred to other mule accounts.
The CBI alleged that Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh, the appellant, provided logistical assistance to the principal accused by transporting cheque books, ATM cards and SIM cards used in the alleged offences. He was also accused of facilitating payments and possessing mobile phones used for the transfers.
The appellant was taken into custody on 13 July 2025. He was initially remanded to police custody and was subsequently sent to judicial custody on 20 July 2025.
The prosecution filed the chargesheet against the appellant and other accused persons on 2 September 2025 under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. However, the complete set of additional copies and accompanying documents was allegedly not filed or supplied to the appellant within the statutory period. A copy of the chargesheet was eventually supplied to him on 23 September 2025.
The appellant contended that he became entitled to default bail on 11 September 2025 because the additional copies of the chargesheet and related documents had not been filed or supplied within the prescribed period. His default-bail application was rejected by the Special Judge, CBI, and the rejection was subsequently affirmed by the Bombay High Court.
The appellant thereafter approached the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether filing a chargesheet without the additional copies required under Section 193(8) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 amounts to non-filing of the chargesheet.
- Whether failure to file or supply the additional copies and accompanying documents within the statutory period entitles an accused to default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS.
- Whether the requirements relating to filing and supply of copies under Sections 193(8) and 230 of the BNSS are integral to the validity of the chargesheet for the purpose of default bail.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant argued that Section 193(8) of the BNSS requires the investigating officer to submit the necessary number of copies of the police report and accompanying documents to the Magistrate for supply to the accused.
It was contended that the use of the word “shall” made this obligation mandatory. Therefore, filing only the original police report without the additional copies and documents could not be treated as complete filing of the chargesheet.
The appellant further relied on Section 230 of the BNSS, which requires the Magistrate to supply the police report and other specified documents to the accused within fourteen days from the date of production or appearance.
Accordingly, the appellant claimed that the chargesheet was incomplete and that the investigating agency had failed to complete the statutory filing requirements within the prescribed period, thereby giving rise to an indefeasible right to default bail.
Respondent’s Arguments
The CBI argued that the right to default bail arises only when the investigating agency fails to file the chargesheet itself within the prescribed period of sixty or ninety days, as applicable.
It submitted that the chargesheet against the appellant had been filed on 2 September 2025, well within the statutory period, and contained the particulars required under Section 193(3) of the BNSS.
The CBI maintained that the failure to file additional copies or supply the chargesheet immediately to the accused could not invalidate an otherwise valid police report.
It was also submitted that a copy of the chargesheet had been made available to the Magistrate and was supplied to the appellant on 23 September 2025, within three days of his appearance before the Magistrate on 20 September 2025.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court compared the provisions governing default bail, police reports and supply of documents under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the BNSS.
The Court found that Section 187(3) of the BNSS is substantially similar to Section 167(2) of the CrPC. Both provisions confer a right to default bail where the investigation is not completed and the police report is not filed within the applicable statutory period.
Section 193(3) of the BNSS prescribes the substantive contents of the police report to be forwarded to the Magistrate after completion of investigation. Section 193(8), however, separately requires the investigating officer to submit sufficient copies of the police report and accompanying documents for supply to the accused under Section 230.
The Court held that these provisions perform different functions:
- Section 193(3) governs the filing and substantive validity of the police report.
- Section 193(8) facilitates the supply of copies to the accused.
- Section 230 prescribes the Magistrate’s obligation to furnish the police report and documents within fourteen days.
Failure to comply with the requirement of filing additional copies under Section 193(8) does not amount to failure to file the chargesheet under Section 187(3).
Once a police report containing the particulars prescribed under Section 193(3) is filed within the statutory period, the accused’s right to default bail stands extinguished. Non-compliance with provisions relating to copies or subsequent supply of documents may require corrective action, but it does not revive or create a right to default bail.
Precedent Analysis
The Supreme Court referred to several earlier decisions governing default bail:
Saravanan v. State and Fakhrey Alam v. State of Uttar Pradesh
These decisions recognised default bail as an indefeasible right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution. However, that right operates only when the statutory conditions for its exercise are fulfilled.
State v. T. Gangi Reddy
The Court reiterated that default bail is not granted on the merits of the prosecution case. It results from the failure of the investigating agency to file the chargesheet within the prescribed period.
Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra and SFIO v. Rahul Modi
These decisions established that the right to default bail ceases once the chargesheet is filed within the statutory period.
Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam and Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab
The Court noted that an application for default bail may even be made orally and that courts should not adopt an unduly technical approach in matters concerning personal liberty.
Judgebir Singh v. NIA
The Supreme Court had held that the right to default bail is conditional upon the investigation remaining incomplete. Once the investigation is completed through filing of a police report containing the statutorily required particulars, default bail cannot be claimed.
CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan
This decision held that non-filing of every document relied upon by the prosecution does not invalidate the chargesheet. Pendency of further investigation or subsequent production of documents also does not make the chargesheet incomplete for default-bail purposes.
CBI v. R.S. Pai
The requirement under Section 173(5) of the CrPC to forward supporting documents and witness statements along with the police report was held to be directory. Omitted documents could be produced subsequently with the court’s permission.
Narendra Kumar Amin v. CBI
The Court rejected a default-bail claim based on the allegation that the chargesheet had not been accompanied by a complete set of documents. Filing a police report containing the particulars required under Section 173(2) of the CrPC within the statutory period was held sufficient.
The Supreme Court applied these principles to the corresponding BNSS provisions and held that the introduction of Section 193(8) did not alter the established legal position.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the chargesheet had been filed before the Magistrate on 2 September 2025, within the applicable statutory period. It complied with the substantive requirements of Section 193(3) of the BNSS.
Therefore, the appellant’s right to default bail stood extinguished on that date.
The requirement to file additional copies under Section 193(8) was intended to facilitate the timely supply of the chargesheet and documents to the accused. Its non-compliance could not be equated with complete non-filing of the police report.
The Court also noted that cognizance had been taken on 18 October 2025 and that the cognizance order had not been challenged. This further indicated that the chargesheet contained sufficient material and complied with the legal requirements for taking cognizance.
The Court clarified that default bail and regular bail operate on different considerations. Rejection of the appellant’s default-bail claim would not prevent him from seeking regular bail on the merits of the case.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that failure to file additional copies of the chargesheet or accompanying documents under Section 193(8) of the BNSS does not entitle an accused to default bail when a police report complying with Section 193(3) has been filed within the statutory period.
The appeal was dismissed, and the Bombay High Court’s order rejecting the default-bail claim was affirmed.
The Supreme Court, however, clarified that the appellant’s regular-bail application must be considered independently on its own merits and without being influenced by the observations concerning default bail.
Case: Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case Number: 2026 INSC 666; Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4333 of 2026
Judge: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Date: 1 July 2026
Result: Appeal dismissed; rejection of default bail affirmed, with liberty to pursue regular bail on merits
