The Supreme Court has held that an accused is not entitled to statutory/default bail merely because copies of the chargesheet and accompanying documents were not supplied within the prescribed period, provided that the investigating agency had filed the chargesheet within the statutory time limit.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh dismissed the appeal filed against the Bombay High Court’s order refusing default bail, holding that the right to default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS is triggered only by the failure to file the chargesheet within the prescribed period of 60 or 90 days, and not by subsequent procedural lapses relating to supply of copies.
The case arose from a CBI investigation into an alleged cybercrime syndicate involving digital arrest scams, phishing attacks, customs fraud, and operation of mule bank accounts. According to the prosecution, cybercriminals, with the assistance of certain bank officials, allegedly opened and operated bank accounts using forged KYC documents for routing proceeds of cyber fraud.
Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026
The appellant was accused of providing logistical assistance to the alleged conspiracy by transporting cheque books, ATM cards and SIM cards used in the commission of the offences and facilitating payments for the conspirators. He was arrested on 13 July 2025, while the CBI filed its chargesheet on 2 September 2025, within the statutory investigation period.
The appellant argued that although the chargesheet had been filed before the Magistrate, copies of the chargesheet and related documents were not supplied to him within the statutory period. He contended that under the newly introduced Section 193(8) of the BNSS, investigating officers are required to submit sufficient copies of the police report and documents for supply to the accused under Section 230.
Since those copies were allegedly not filed or supplied in time, he claimed that the chargesheet remained incomplete and that he had therefore acquired an indefeasible right to default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS.
The principal question before the Court was whether filing of a chargesheet without the additional copies required under Section 193(8) BNSS entitles an accused to default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS?
The Court undertook a detailed comparison of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and the BNSS, 2023.
It noted that Section 187 BNSS, governing default bail, is substantially identical to Section 167(2) CrPC. Section 193 BNSS largely reproduces Section 173 CrPC but introduces Section 193(8), requiring investigating officers to submit sufficient copies of the police report and accompanying documents for supply to the accused. Section 230 BNSS further mandates that the Magistrate furnish these documents to the accused within 14 days of production or appearance.
The Court held that these additional procedural requirements do not alter the fundamental principles governing default bail.
Reiterating settled jurisprudence, the Bench observed that default bail is a constitutional safeguard flowing from Article 21, intended to prevent prolonged incarceration during investigation. However, that right exists only until the investigating agency files a valid chargesheet within the statutory period.
The Court emphasized that: “Simple non-filing of additional copies of the chargesheet/police report will not entitle the appellant to the relief of default bail.”
It clarified that once a chargesheet complying with Section 193(3) BNSS has been filed before the Magistrate within the prescribed period, the statutory right to default bail comes to an end.
Rejecting the appellant’s interpretation, the Supreme Court held that Section 193(8) BNSS does not determine the validity of the chargesheet itself.
The Bench ruled that failure to submit additional copies for supply to the accused is merely a procedural irregularity and cannot be equated with non-filing of the chargesheet.
Consequently, non-compliance with Section 193(8) cannot revive or create the statutory right to default bail under Section 187(3).
The Court relied upon several earlier judgments including: Judgebir Singh v. NIA, CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan, CBI v. R.S. Pai, and Narendra Kumar Amin v. CBI. These precedents consistently held that default bail is available only where the investigation remains incomplete because no chargesheet has been filed within the statutory period. Non-filing of certain supporting documents does not invalidate the chargesheet. Additional documents may subsequently be produced with the court’s permission. Procedural omissions regarding documents do not confer a statutory right to default bail.
While dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court clarified that the appellant’s regular bail application must be considered independently on its own merits, uninfluenced by the findings in the present judgment.
The Court observed that consideration of default bail and regular bail operate in different legal fields, and rejection of one does not prejudice the other.
The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeal and affirmed the Bombay High Court’s order refusing default bail.
The Court conclusively held that filing of a chargesheet within the statutory period extinguishes the right to default bail, even if copies of the chargesheet or supporting documents are supplied later in compliance with Section 230 BNSS. Any lapse in supplying copies cannot be treated as equivalent to non-filing of the chargesheet.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
