Default Bail: Right Ends Once Charge Sheet Is Filed, Even Against Absconding Accused, Says MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that an accused is not entitled to default or statutory bail merely because the police failed to file a supplementary charge sheet after his arrest, if a valid charge sheet had already been filed against him during the period when he was absconding.

Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal passed the ruling while dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by Bablu alias Arvind Dubey, who had challenged an order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hata, Damoh, rejecting his application for default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (corresponding to Section 167(2)(a) of the CrPC).

The petitioner was an accused in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code along with provisions of the Arms Act. While other accused persons were tried and convicted in 2022, Bablu remained absconding for several years and was eventually arrested on March 18, 2025.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocates Sankalp Kochar and Siddhant Kochar argued that after the arrest of Bablu, the investigating agency repeatedly sought time to file a supplementary charge sheet but failed to do so within the prescribed period. They contended that this failure entitled the accused to default bail. The defence further argued that the document filed in 2017 could not be treated as a valid supplementary charge sheet and was merely a communication by the police.

Opposing the plea, Panel Lawyer Ritesh Sharma, appearing for the State, submitted that a charge sheet had already been filed against the petitioner during his abscondence and therefore there was no legal requirement to file another supplementary charge sheet after his arrest.

After examining the record, the Court found that the original charge sheet had been filed in 2012 and that a supplementary charge sheet was subsequently filed on July 1, 2017. In that document, the police specifically stated that Bablu was absconding, that the investigation against him had been completed, and that only his arrest remained pending.

The Court noted that after Bablu’s arrest, the investigating officer sought permission for custodial interrogation and was granted time on several occasions for filing a supplementary charge sheet. However, no such supplementary report was ultimately filed.

The central question before the High Court was whether filing a supplementary charge sheet after the arrest of an absconding accused is mandatory and whether failure to do so within the statutory period would revive the accused’s right to default bail.

Relying on several Supreme Court decisions, including Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI, Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat and CBI v. Rathin Dandapat, the Court reiterated that once a charge sheet under Section 173(2) CrPC is filed, the right to default bail ceases. Further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC can continue, but such investigation does not revive the right to statutory bail.

The Court observed that the supplementary charge sheet filed in 2017 clearly demonstrated that the investigation against Bablu had already been completed and that only his arrest was pending. It held that the filing of a charge sheet against an absconding accused is legally valid and sufficient to conclude the investigation for the purpose of default bail provisions.

In a significant observation, Justice Bansal held, “Where a charge-sheet has already been filed against an accused during his abscondence, it is not mandatory for the Investigating Agency to further file a supplementary charge-sheet after his subsequent arrest.”

The Court further said that seeking time for further investigation after arrest does not mean the investigation remains incomplete. It clarified that filing a supplementary charge sheet in such circumstances is discretionary and not a statutory requirement.

Holding that the petitioner’s “indefeasible right” to default bail had already been extinguished when the charge sheet was filed in 2017, the Court concluded that the trial court had committed no error in rejecting the bail application. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Bablu Alias Arvind Dubey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: July 1, 2026

Bench: Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal