Non-supply of chargesheet copies under BNSS does not trigger default bail: Supreme Court
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that once a chargesheet is filed in proper form within time, non-compliance with Section 193(8) BNSS cannot entitle an accused to default bail.
The Supreme Court has held that the failure to file or supply additional copies of a chargesheet, as required by Section 193(8) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, does not entitle an accused to default bail. The right to default bail arises only when the chargesheet is not filed within the prescribed sixty or ninety days, and it ceases once the report is filed in the form prescribed under Section 193(3) BNSS.
Delivering the judgment in Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Justice Sanjay Karol dismissed the appeal against a Bombay High Court order that had refused default bail. The Court affirmed that non-filing of a copy of the chargesheet cannot become a ground for default bail, and clarified that the appellant’s pending regular bail plea must be decided on its own merits.
How the default bail claim reached the Court
The appellant, Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh, was named in FIR No. RC0682025 E 0004 dated 4 July 2025, registered under Sections 61(2) read with 318, 336 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The CBI alleged that a mule company, SP Cargo and Courier Services Pvt. Ltd., operated by Sudhir Palande, was used to route proceeds of cybercrime. An amount of Rs 3.81 crore was transferred into the account on 2 July 2025 and moved on to other mule accounts. The case against the appellant was that he provided logistical support, transporting cheque books, ATM cards and SIM cards, and that the mobile phones used for the transfers were in his possession.
The appellant was taken into custody on 13 July 2025 at the CBI office, Nagpur. After transit remand, he was produced before the Special Judge, CBI, Mumbai on 14 July 2025 and remanded to police custody. He was sent to judicial custody on 20 July 2025. His regular bail application was dismissed on 25 July 2025.
On 2 September 2025, the prosecution filed the chargesheet against the appellant along with co-accused. A copy was supplied to him on 23 September 2025. The appellant contended that the chargesheet copies and related documents were not supplied within the statutory period, and that he became eligible for default bail on 11 September 2025. His default bail application under Section 187(3) BNSS was dismissed by the Special Judge, CBI, Greater Mumbai on 25 September 2025, and his revision was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on 6 February 2026.
The statutory question before the Court
The issue framed was whether filing a chargesheet without the additional copies required by Section 193(8) BNSS would entitle the appellant to default bail.
The appellant argued that the requirement to file copies of the chargesheet under Section 193(8) BNSS is mandatory, fortified by Section 230 BNSS, which requires supply of a copy of the police report to the accused within fourteen days of production or appearance. The CBI submitted that the right to statutory bail exists only where the police fail to file the chargesheet within sixty or ninety days, and that a copy was supplied to the Magistrate to be handed to the appellant on 23 September 2025.
Comparing the CrPC and BNSS provisions, the Court found that the default bail sections — Section 167(2) CrPC and Section 187(3) BNSS — are substantially identical. The chargesheet provisions in Section 173 CrPC and Section 193 BNSS are also substantially the same, the addition in BNSS being Section 193(8), which requires additional copies for supply to the accused. Section 230 BNSS sets a fourteen-day timeline for supply of documents to the accused.
Why non-supply of copies does not vitiate the chargesheet
The Court set out established principles on default bail: it is an indefeasible right flowing from Article 21; it is not a release on merits but on the investigating agency’s failure to file the chargesheet in time; and it ends once the chargesheet is filed within the prescribed period.
Relying on Judgebir Singh v. NIA, the Court reiterated that once investigation is complete with the filing of the police report containing the details specified under Section 173(2) CrPC, “the question of a claim or grant for default bail does not arise.”
The Court drew on CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan, which held that even where all documents relied upon by the prosecution are not filed with the chargesheet, this would not invalidate the chargesheet itself. It also cited CBI v. R.S. Pai, where the word “shall” in Section 173(5) CrPC was read as directory rather than mandatory, and Narendra Kumar Amin v. CBI, where a default bail plea based on an incomplete document set was rejected.
Applying this line, the Court held that non-filing of additional copies under Section 193(8) “would not vitiate the chargesheet/police report itself.” The position under BNSS remains that the right arises only when the chargesheet is not filed within sixty or ninety days, and non-compliance with Section 193(8) cannot be equated with non-compliance under Section 187(3) BNSS.
Order
The Court recorded that the chargesheet was filed before the Magistrate on 2 September 2025 within the statutory period, in compliance with Section 193(3) BNSS, and that cognizance had since been taken. On that date, the right to default bail became extinguished and the appellant ought to have applied for regular bail.
The Court clarified that the appellant’s regular bail application is to be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law, independent of this appeal, since consideration of default bail is not on merits.
The appeal was dismissed and the Bombay High Court order dated 6 February 2026 in CRA No. 475 of 2025 was affirmed. Pending applications were disposed of.