Charge-Sheet Filed During Abscondence Bars Default Bail After Arrest, Holds Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a charge-sheet filed against an absconding accused extinguishes his right to default bail, and the investigating agency is under no statutory obligation to file a supplementary charge-sheet after his subsequent arrest.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dismissed a criminal revision filed by Bablu alias Arvind Dubey, who sought default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) after the State failed to file a supplementary charge-sheet following his arrest in March 2025. Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal, sitting singly, held that a supplementary charge-sheet dated 01.07.2017, filed during Bablu's abscondence under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), had already concluded the investigation against him. Once that charge-sheet was on record, the indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167 CrPC and its BNSS equivalent stood extinguished. Any subsequent steps by the police to file a further charge-sheet after his arrest amounted to further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, which is discretionary — not a statutory mandate.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The underlying case, registered as RCT No. 355/2012, began with an FIR in which six accused were named. When the first charge-sheet was filed on 22.12.2012, three accused — including Bablu, Vinay, and Rajendra — were shown as absconding. The charge-sheet noted that investigation against the absconding accused was continuing under Section 173(8) CrPC.

A supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 09.03.2015 after Rajendra was arrested. A further supplementary charge-sheet dated 01.07.2017 was filed covering Vinay Dubey. In that same document, the investigating officer stated that accused Bablu had committed offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959, but that his arrest had not been secured as he had been absconding since the date of the incident. A charge-sheet against Bablu was accordingly prepared under Section 299 CrPC, with only his arrest remaining.

Co-accused Rajendra and Vinay were tried and convicted on 05.03.2022 in S.T. No. 365/2012, receiving sentences of rigorous imprisonment of five years each under Section 307 IPC. Three other accused — Bhupendra, Sudama, and Kailash — were similarly convicted and sentenced.

Bablu was eventually arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Hata, District Damoh on 18.03.2025. On the State's request, he was remanded to custody. Thereafter, on multiple occasions, the investigating agency sought time to file a supplementary charge-sheet before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hata, in S.T. No. 16/2025 — as recorded in the order sheet dated 06.08.2025 — but failed to file one.

Bablu filed an application dated 17.06.2025 before the JMFC for default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS, contending that no supplementary charge-sheet had been filed within the prescribed 60 or 90 days from his arrest. The JMFC dismissed that application on 23.02.2026, prompting the present criminal revision.

The Legal Issue

The central question before Justice Bansal was precise: where a charge-sheet has already been filed during an accused's abscondence, is the subsequent filing of a supplementary charge-sheet after his arrest mandatory, and does the failure to file one within 60 or 90 days of arrest entitle the accused to statutory default bail under Section 167 CrPC / Section 187 BNSS?

Bablu's counsel, Shri Sankalp Kochar and Shri Siddhant Kochar, advanced two arguments. First, no supplementary charge-sheet had been filed against Bablu within the prescribed period after his arrest, thereby triggering his entitlement to default bail. Second, the document dated 05.07.2017 purportedly bearing the heading “Supplementary Challan/Charge-sheet” was merely a letter and not a final report in the format prescribed under Section 173 CrPC / Section 193 BNSS, and could not be treated as a valid charge-sheet.

The State, represented by Panel Lawyer Shri Ritesh Sharma, supported the impugned order. The State's position was that the charge-sheet filed on 05.07.2017, even during Bablu's abscondence, dispensed with any need to file a fresh supplementary charge-sheet after his arrest, particularly in light of a letter dated 29.05.2025 written by Sub-Inspector Shesh Kumar Dubey, Police Station Batiyagarh.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Bansal began by examining the original record. The first charge-sheet of 22.12.2012 listed Bablu as an absconding accused and expressly kept the investigation against him open under Section 173(8) CrPC. The supplementary charge-sheet of 09.03.2015 addressed Rajendra's arrest. The supplementary charge-sheet of 01.07.2017 then covered Vinay's arrest and — critically — filed a charge-sheet against Bablu under Section 299 CrPC in absentia, stating that investigation had been completed and only his arrest remained.

On the first argument, the Court held that the 2012 and 2015 charge-sheets had kept the investigation open under Section 173(8) CrPC, but the charge-sheet of 05.07.2017 concluded that investigation by covering both Vinay and Bablu. The Trial Court had taken the 05.07.2017 charge-sheet on record. The Court accepted that the Trial Court's order of 05.07.2017 specifically named only co-accused Vinay in its operative portion, omitting Bablu's name. However, the Court held that this omission did not mean no charge-sheet existed against Bablu. Once the supplementary charge-sheet dated 01.07.2017 formed part of the Trial Court's record, the investigation against Bablu stood concluded.

The factual foundation for this conclusion was reinforced by an earlier round of litigation. In Criminal Revision No. 4625/2025, this Court had remanded the matter to the JMFC on 23.01.2026 for the limited purpose of verifying whether a charge-sheet had been filed against Bablu on 05.07.2017. The JMFC, by order dated 23.02.2026, recorded a categorical finding that the charge-sheet had indeed been filed on that date. In the present proceedings, the High Court called for the original record and confirmed that the charge-sheet dated 01.07.2017 was available on record.

The Court drew extensively on the Supreme Court's ruling in Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI, (2007) 8 SCC 770, which established that a charge-sheet can be filed against an absconding accused without awaiting his arrest. The Court noted the further proposition from that judgment that the right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is available only so long as a charge-sheet has not been filed, and that once a charge-sheet is filed the right ceases — it does not revive merely because further investigation continues under Section 173(8) CrPC.

CBI v. Rathin Dandapat, (2016) 1 SCC 507 reinforced the position that where an accused is arrested at the stage of further investigation after a charge-sheet has already been filed, Section 167 CrPC governs his remand only until a supplementary charge-sheet is filed — but the default bail right does not arise afresh from the date of his arrest if the original investigation had already been concluded by the earlier charge-sheet.

The Court also relied on the Punjab and Haryana High Court's Division Bench ruling in National Investigation Agency v. Gurwinder Singh @ Baba, 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1659, which held that the date of filing of the charge-sheet against an absconding accused is the relevant date for computing entitlement to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, irrespective of the accused remaining under abscondence thereafter and irrespective of a subsequent arrest.

A coordinate bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Majahar Khan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC No. 25878 of 2023 — affirmed by the Supreme Court when a Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 06.05.2024 — had similarly held that when a charge-sheet was filed during the accused's abscondence, the benefit of default bail cannot be extended after his subsequent arrest.

On the second argument — that the document of 01.07.2017 was merely a letter — the Court rejected the contention. It found that the document bore the heading of a supplementary challan/charge-sheet, was filed before the Trial Court, and was taken on record. The original record verified by the High Court confirmed its existence as a charge-sheet.

On the question of the police seeking time to file a supplementary charge-sheet after Bablu's arrest, Justice Bansal was equally clear. That conduct by the investigating agency amounted to exercise of the power of further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, which is discretionary. There is no statutory mandate requiring an investigating agency to invariably file a supplementary charge-sheet upon the arrest of an accused against whom a charge-sheet was already filed in absentia. The Court held that the investigating agency's act of seeking time did not render the investigation incomplete so as to revive the accused's default bail right.

The decisions cited by Bablu's counsel — CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan, (2024) 3 SCC 734; Pankaj v. State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 16425; Sunil Vitthal Wagh v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) 2 MhLJ (Cri) 164; and Shaikh Hussain alias Lakhan Shaikh Ibrahim v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application (APL) No. 839 of 2017 (Bombay HC, Nagpur Bench) — were held to be distinguishable on facts and of no assistance to the petitioner.

Outcome

Justice Bansal dismissed Criminal Revision No. 1443 of 2026. The impugned order dated 23.02.2026 of the JMFC, Hata, District Damoh, rejecting Bablu's application for default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS, was upheld. The Court recorded that the indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167 CrPC / Section 187 BNSS had stood extinguished upon the filing of the charge-sheet against Bablu on 05.07.2017, during his abscondence. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of. The Registry was directed to return the original record of the court below immediately.