Non-Filing Of Additional Chargesheet Copies Under Section 193(8) BNSS Not A Ground For Default Bail: Supreme Court

"Having considered the above statutory provisions and pronouncements of the Court, we are of the view that simple non-filing of additional copies of the chargesheet/police report will not entitle the appellant to the relief of default bail." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated July 1, 2026, held that the failure of an investigating agency to submit additional copies of a chargesheet as required under Section 193(8) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) does not entitle an accused to "default bail."

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that the right to statutory bail is extinguished the moment a police report in the prescribed form is filed within the statutory period, regardless of procedural omissions regarding copies.

The court was dealing with an appeal where the appellant, accused in a cyber-fraud case investigated by the CBI, claimed that the non-supply of chargesheet copies within the 60/90-day period made the filing "incomplete." The bench clarified that the mandate to provide copies is a procedural requirement intended to facilitate the trial and does not vitiate the finality of the investigation report for the purpose of Section 187(3) of the BNSS.

The appellant, Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh, was arrested by the CBI in July 2025 for his alleged role in a conspiracy involving the operation of "mule" bank accounts to facilitate cyber-crimes such as digital arrests and phishing. Although the CBI filed the chargesheet on September 2, 2025—well within the statutory timeframe—the appellant moved for default bail on September 17, 2025, arguing that the investigation report was incomplete because the additional copies and documents required by the new criminal laws had not been provided to him within the prescribed period.

The primary question before the court was whether the filing of a chargesheet without additional copies as required by Section 193(8) of the BNSS would entitle an accused to the benefit of default bail under Section 187(3). The court also had to determine if the legislative intent behind the new BNSS provisions made the supply of such copies a mandatory condition precedent for a "valid" filing of a police report.

BNSS Provisions On Default Bail Mirror Erstwhile CrPC

The Court began by noting that the provisions governing default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS are substantially identical to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The bench observed that while the phraseology might differ slightly, the legal import remains the same. The right to default bail is an "indefeasible right" that flows from Article 21 of the Constitution, but it is a conditional one that ceases to exist once the investigation is complete and the police report is filed.

Court Explains Completion Of Investigation Under Section 193 BNSS

The bench emphasized that for the purpose of defeating a claim for default bail, the court must only see if the police report containing the particulars specified in Section 193(3) of the BNSS has been forwarded to the Magistrate. Once such a report is filed within the 60 or 90-day window, the requirement of the law is satisfied. The court noted that the addition of Section 193(8) in the BNSS, which requires the investigating officer to file extra copies for the accused, does not alter the fundamental definition of a "completed" investigation.

Non-Supply Of Documents Does Not Vitiate Chargesheet

Relying on the precedent in CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan, the Court reiterated that even if all documents relied upon by the prosecution are not filed with the chargesheet, the report itself is not invalidated. The bench noted that the court takes cognizance of the offence and not the offender. If the material produced is sufficient for the court to be satisfied about the commission of an offence, the right to default bail is extinguished, irrespective of whether further investigation or document production is pending.

"The pendency of the further investigation qua the other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of charge-sheet would neither vitiate the charge-sheet, nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default bail."

Section 193(8) BNSS Is Directory, Not Mandatory

The Court addressed the appellant's argument that the word "shall" in Section 193(8) makes the filing of copies mandatory. Drawing a parallel to Section 173(5) of the CrPC and the ruling in CBI v. R.S. Pai, the bench held that the word "shall" in this context must be interpreted as directory. The Court observed that while the investigating officer is expected to produce all documents, the law does not prohibit the subsequent production of additional materials with the court's permission.

Distinction Between Filing Report And Serving Copies

The bench further pointed out that Section 230 of the BNSS provides a separate timeline of fourteen days from the date of the accused's production or appearance for the supply of the police report and other documents. The court held that the legislature has treated the "filing" of the report and the "supply" of copies as distinct procedural steps. Consequently, a delay or omission in the latter cannot lead to the drastic consequence of granting default bail if the former was done within time.

Extinguishment Of The Right To Statutory Bail

The Court concluded that since the CBI had filed the chargesheet on September 2, 2025, in compliance with the prescribed form, the appellant’s right to default bail was extinguished on that very day. The bench noted that cognizance had already been taken on the chargesheet and that order remained unchallenged. The court affirmed the findings of the Special Judge and the Bombay High Court, stating that the non-filing of copies is not a valid ground for the grant of statutory bail.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not entitled to default bail as the chargesheet was filed within the statutory period. However, the bench clarified that the appellant is at liberty to move an application for regular bail, which should be considered on its own merits, independent of the observations made regarding the technicality of default bail.

Date of Decision: July 1, 2026