Default Bail | Right Ends Once Charge Sheet Is Filed On Time, Even If Accused Received Delayed Copy: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that merely because the investigating agency does not file or supply additional copies of the charge sheet/police report to the accused, the accused cannot claim default bail.

Court clarified that the right to default bail arises only when the charge sheet itself is not filed within the statutory period, and once a valid charge sheet is filed in the prescribed form, that right comes to an end.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh said that once a charge sheet is filed within the stipulated period in compliance with Section 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [earlier Section 173(2) of the older Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)], the accused loses the right to seek default bail.

Section 193(3) of the BNSS requires the investigating officer, upon completion of the investigation, to submit a police report (charge sheet) to the Magistrate in the prescribed format. The report must contain essential details such as the names of the parties, nature of the offence, witnesses, the offences disclosed, the status of the accused (arrested, on bail, or in custody), the medical examination report in specified sexual offence cases, and the chain of custody of electronic devices.

"Non-compliance with Section 193(8) (which mandates the investigating officer to file additional copies of the report for supply to the accused) of the BNSS cannot be construed to give the same result as Section 187(3) (default bail akin to Section 167(2), CrPC) of the BNSS," the Bench held.

Can non-filing of charge sheet copies entitle an accused to default bail?

Answering this in the negative, Court said that failure to file additional copies of the charge sheet under Section 193(8) does not invalidate the charge sheet itself. It observed that the legal position under the BNSS remains the same as under the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): the right to default bail arises only if the charge sheet is not filed within the prescribed period of 60 or 90 days, as applicable.

Why was the appellant denied default bail?

The ruling came while dismissing an appeal filed by Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh, whose plea for default bail had earlier been rejected by the Bombay High Court.

The Bench noted that the charge sheet/police report had been filed before the magistrate on September 2, 2025, well within the statutory period and in compliance with Section 193(3) of the BNSS.

"Undoubtedly, it is borne from the record that the charge sheet/police report stood filed within the prescribed statutory time before the magistrate on September 02, 2025. The contents thereof, being in compliance with Section 193(3) BNSS. Consequently, on 02.09.2025, the right to default bail became extinguished and the appellant ought to have applied for regular bail," Court said.

It further noted that cognizance had already been taken on the charge sheet and that the order had never been challenged, implying that the charge sheet was in accordance with law.

Court, therefore, upheld the Bombay High Court's February 6, 2026 judgment rejecting the appellant's plea for default bail.

Background of the case

The appellant was arrested on July 13, 2025, in connection with an FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on July 4, 2025 under Sections 61(2) read with 318, 336 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The FIR was registered against SP Cargo and Courier Services Pvt. Ltd., Sudhir Palande, unknown private persons and unknown bank officials based on information that cyber criminals were using sophisticated digital tools to extort money, impersonate individuals and create forged documents. According to the CBI, certain bank officials facilitated the operation by opening and managing mule accounts using forged KYC documents without proper verification.

The agency alleged that Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh provided logistical support to the main accused, Sudhir Palande, by transporting cheque books, ATM cards and SIM cards used in the alleged offences. He was also alleged to have facilitated payments for the conspirators and to have possessed mobile phones used for the transfers.

The prosecution filed the charge sheet against the appellant and two co-accused, Sudhir Palande and Yash Thakur, on September 2, 2025 under Sections 61(2) read with Sections 318, 319, 336 and 340 of the BNS, along with Sections 66 and 66D of the Information Technology Act. A copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the appellant on September 23, 2025.

The appellant argued that since copies of the charge sheet and the accompanying documents were neither filed nor supplied within the statutory period, he became entitled to default bail on September 11, 2025.

However, the special court rejected the plea, holding that the appellant had failed to cite any authoritative precedent granting default bail merely because certain documents were not filed or supplied. The Bombay High Court affirmed that view, observing that default bail is available only when the charge sheet itself is not filed within the prescribed period, and not because copies are supplied later.

Agreeing with the courts below, the Supreme Court said, "In our view, the courts below have rightly held that the non filing of a copy of the charge sheet cannot become a ground for default bail and the submission of the appellant cannot be accepted".

While dismissing the appeal, Court clarified that the appellant's pending regular bail application would be decided independently on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made in the present judgment.

Case Title: Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation 

Bench: Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh

Date of Judgment: July 1, 2026