Default Bail Under BNSS: Non-Filing of Additional Charge-Sheet Copies Under Section 193(8) Does Not Invalidate a Timely Police Report
1. Introduction
In SHAURYA SUNIL KUMAR SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
the Supreme Court of India considered an important question under the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”): whether an accused becomes entitled to
default bail merely because additional copies of the charge-sheet and related documents were not filed or supplied within the statutory period.
The appellant, Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh, was arrested in connection with a CBI case involving alleged cyber fraud, mule bank accounts, forged KYC documents, and corruption-related allegations. According to the CBI, the appellant provided logistical support by transporting cheque books, ATM cards and SIM cards, and facilitated payments connected with the cybercrime proceeds.
The charge-sheet was filed on 02.09.2025, within the statutory period. However, the appellant argued that because copies of the charge-sheet and supporting documents were not filed and supplied to him within that period, he acquired an indefeasible right to default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS.
2. Summary of the Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Bombay High Court refusing default bail.
The Court held that:
-
The right to default bail arises only when the investigating agency fails to file the police report/charge-sheet within the prescribed period of sixty or ninety days.
-
Once a charge-sheet complying with Section 193(3) BNSS is filed within time, the right to default bail comes to an end.
-
Non-filing of additional copies required under Section 193(8) BNSS, or delay in supplying copies under Section 230 BNSS, does not invalidate the charge-sheet and does not create a right to default bail.
-
The appellant may still pursue regular bail, which must be considered independently on merits.
3. Analysis
A. Precedents Cited
This case was cited for the principle that the right to default bail is an indefeasible right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that personal liberty is central to criminal procedure and that statutory safeguards must be strictly respected.
This precedent also emphasized the constitutional character of default bail. The Court used it to recognize that default bail is not a mere procedural benefit, but a protection linked to liberty under Article 21.
The Court relied on this decision to clarify that default bail is not granted on the merits of the accusation. It is granted because the investigating agency has failed to complete investigation and file the charge-sheet within the statutory period. The judgment also noted that the object of default bail is to ensure expeditious investigation and prevent investigative laxity.
This case was cited for the rule that the right to default bail ceases once the charge-sheet is filed within the prescribed time. The present judgment applies the same rule under the BNSS framework.
SFIO v. Rahul Modi
The Court referred to this decision along with Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State Of Maharashtra and Anr to reinforce that timely filing of the charge-sheet extinguishes the accused’s right to default bail.
This precedent was cited for the proposition that courts should not be overly technical in matters involving personal liberty, and that an application for default bail may even be made orally. Although the Court acknowledged this liberal approach, it held that the foundational requirement for default bail—non-filing of the charge-sheet within time—was absent here.
This case similarly underscored the importance of default bail as a liberty-protecting mechanism. However, it did not assist the appellant because the CBI had filed the charge-sheet within time.
Judgebir Singh v. NIA
This was a central precedent. The Court relied on it to hold that once investigation is complete and a police report containing the details required under the law is filed, the question of default bail does not arise. The Court quoted the principle that default bail is conditional on the pendency of investigation.
Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI
This case, referred to within Judgebir Singh v. NIA, established that the right to default bail, though valuable, is conditional. The condition precedent is that investigation remains pending and no proper charge-sheet has been filed within the statutory period.
This decision significantly influenced the Court’s reasoning. It held that even if all documents relied upon by the prosecution are not filed along with the charge-sheet, the charge-sheet is not automatically invalidated. The present judgment extends that logic to Section 193(8) BNSS, holding that non-filing of additional copies does not make the charge-sheet incomplete for default bail purposes.
The Court relied on this precedent to hold that procedural requirements concerning filing of supporting documents are generally directory, not mandatory, unless the statute clearly provides otherwise. The earlier CrPC provision requiring documents to accompany the police report was interpreted as directory, and the same rationale was applied to the BNSS requirement of submitting additional copies.
Narayan Rao v. State of A.P.
This decision was referred to through Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai. It supported the view that the use of the word “shall” in provisions relating to forwarding of documents does not always make the requirement mandatory. Context and statutory purpose remain important.
The Court relied on this case to reject the argument that non-filing of a full set of documents with the charge-sheet entitles the accused to default bail. If the police report contains the particulars required by law and is filed within the stipulated time, default bail cannot be claimed merely because some documents or copies are absent.
B. Legal Reasoning
The Court compared the relevant provisions of the old Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with the BNSS:
-
Section 167(2) CrPC and Section 187(3) BNSS are substantially similar in substance.
-
Section 173 CrPC and Section 193 BNSS both deal with the police report/charge-sheet.
-
Section 193(8) BNSS newly requires the investigating officer to submit sufficient copies of the police report and documents for supply to the accused.
-
Section 230 BNSS requires the Magistrate to furnish copies to the accused and victim within fourteen days of production or appearance.
The appellant’s argument was that Section 193(8) BNSS is mandatory and that failure to comply with it should mean that no valid charge-sheet was filed. The Supreme Court rejected this.
The Court distinguished between:
-
Filing of the police report itself, which is essential for stopping the accrual of default bail; and
-
Filing or supplying additional copies and documents, which is a procedural obligation but does not determine whether the charge-sheet exists in law.
Since the charge-sheet was filed on 02.09.2025 and complied with Section 193(3) BNSS, the appellant’s right to default bail stood extinguished on that date. Any delay or defect relating to copies could not revive that right.
C. Impact of the Judgment
This judgment is significant because it clarifies the operation of default bail under the newly enacted BNSS. It prevents accused persons from claiming default bail on purely procedural defects relating to copies, where the charge-sheet itself has been filed within time.
The ruling will likely affect future criminal proceedings in the following ways:
-
Investigating agencies must still comply with Section 193(8) BNSS and ensure timely supply of copies, but non-compliance will not automatically result in default bail.
-
Courts will focus on whether a police report satisfying Section 193(3) BNSS was filed within the statutory period.
-
Accused persons may challenge delay in supply of documents through appropriate procedural remedies, but not ordinarily through default bail.
-
The judgment maintains continuity between CrPC jurisprudence and BNSS interpretation.
4. Complex Concepts Simplified
Default Bail
Default bail is a statutory right of an accused to be released on bail if the investigating agency fails to file the charge-sheet within the prescribed period, usually sixty or ninety days depending on the offence.
Indefeasible Right
An indefeasible right is a right that cannot be defeated once it has validly accrued. However, in default bail cases, the right accrues only if the charge-sheet is not filed within time and the accused applies for bail before the charge-sheet is filed.
Charge-Sheet / Police Report
A charge-sheet, called a police report under procedural law, is the formal report filed by the investigating agency after completing investigation. It contains details of the accused, offences, evidence, witnesses, and the prosecution’s case.
Section 193(8) BNSS
This provision requires the investigating officer to submit enough copies of the police report and documents so that they can be supplied to the accused. The Supreme Court held that this requirement does not determine whether the charge-sheet itself has been validly filed for default bail purposes.
Section 230 BNSS
This provision requires the Magistrate to provide copies of the police report and documents to the accused and victim within fourteen days. Delay in supply may be a procedural issue, but it is not equivalent to non-filing of the charge-sheet.
5. Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision establishes an important BNSS principle: default bail depends on non-filing of the charge-sheet within the statutory period, not on non-filing or delayed supply of additional copies of that charge-sheet.
By dismissing the appeal, the Court preserved the balance between personal liberty and effective prosecution. It reaffirmed that default bail is a crucial safeguard under Article 21, but it cannot be extended to situations where the investigating agency has filed a proper police report within time.
The appellant remains free to seek regular bail, but not default bail on the ground of non-filing or delayed supply of charge-sheet copies.