The Supreme Court held that an accused cannot claim the benefit of statutory or default bail merely because the investigating agency failed to produce additional copies of the charge-sheet to furnish to the accused, as long as the charge-sheet itself is filed before the court within the prescribed period of 60 or 90 days.
In a ruling on Wednesday, a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Koteswar Singh said the right to default on bail arises from the failure of the investigating agency to complete the investigation and submit the police report within the statutory period, and not from subsequent procedural lapses in filing copies of the charge sheet.
“Failure to file additional copies of the charge-sheet… will not invalidate the charge-sheet/police report itself,” the bench said, adding that “the right to bail in default arises when the charge-sheet is not filed within a period of sixty or ninety days, as applicable.”
The judgment settles an important issue arising under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which, unlike the previous Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), specifically requires investigating officers to produce sufficient copies of the police report and accompanying documents to enable its production to the accused. The court was asked to decide whether failure to comply with this newly introduced condition would entitle the accused to default bail.
Answering the question in the negative, the bench said that the additional obligation created under the BNSS cannot be equated with the consequences under the default bail clause.
“Once the indictment is filed, in accordance with the form prescribed by Article 193(3) BNSS, within the said period, the right to default bail ceases. Failure to comply with Article 193(8) BNSS (in relation to the provision of additional copies) cannot be construed as giving the same result as Article 187(3),” the ruling said.
The ruling came on an appeal filed by Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh, an accused in the CBI case involving alleged wire fraud and extortion of accounts. Singh was arrested on 13 July 2025, and the CBI filed its charge sheet before the statutory period expired on 2 September 2025. However, he was only provided with copies of the charge sheet on 23 September. Singh alleged that the investigating agency did not file or make available the additional copies within time and sought default bail under Section 187(3) of BNSS.
Both the trial court and the Bombay High Court dismissed his plea, holding that default bail is available only if the charge sheet itself is not filed within the stipulated time. The Supreme Court confirmed these findings.
In examining the BNSS scheme, the court noted that while Section 230 now requires a judge to provide copies of a police report and relevant documents to an accused within 14 days of its being served or appearing, this provision operates independently of the statutory right to default bail.
The bench noted that the provisions governing default bail under the BNSS remain largely identical to those under the Code of Criminal Procedure, despite the changes in wording. It also noted that while the BNSS introduces an additional requirement to provide backup copies of the police report, it does not change the legislative scheme governing default bail.
Reiterating settled principles, the court said that default bail is an “irrevocable right” derived from Article 21 of the Constitution, but exists only until the investigation culminates in the filing of a valid police report.
Relying on previous decisions and legal principles, the bench held that the CBI had submitted a valid police report in accordance with Article 193(3) of the BNSS on 2 September 2025, within the specified statutory period. As a result, the appellant’s right to obtain default bail was extinguished on that date and Singh’s solution thereafter lay in seeking regular bail on merits rather than resorting to statutory bail.
