Holding

Non‑filing of additional copies of the charge‑sheet under s.193(8) BNSS does not confer the right to default bail; once the charge‑sheet is filed within the statutory period, the right to default bail ceases.

Summary

The appellant, Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh, was arrested in connection with a cyber‑fraud case involving a mule company and was charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Prevention of Corruption Act and the IT Act. After being remanded, the investigating agency filed a charge‑sheet on 2 September 2025, but failed to supply additional copies of the charge‑sheet to the accused within the period prescribed by section 193(8) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The appellant claimed that this non‑compliance entitled him to default bail under section 187(3) of the BNSS. The Special Judge and the High Court rejected the claim, holding that default bail is available only when the charge‑sheet itself is not filed within the statutory sixty/ ninety‑day period. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that the omission of additional copies does not vitiate the charge‑sheet and therefore does not give rise to a right to default bail. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the order of the High Court was affirmed.

Issues considered

Whether the failure to file additional copies of the charge‑sheet as required by section 193(8) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita deprives the accused of the right to default bail under section 187(3) of the same Act.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 187(3), s. 193(8), s. 230
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023s. 318, s. 336, s. 340, s. 61(2)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 167, s. 173, s. 207
Information Technology Act, 2000s. 66, s. 66D
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 7

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the filing of charge-sheet without additional copies as required by s.193(8) of the BNSS would entitle the appellant for the benefit of default bail. Headnotes† Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – ss.187(3), 193(8) – Default Bail without additional copies, does not entitle the accused for the benefit of default bail – FIR u/s.61(2) r/w ss.318, 336 and 340, BNS, 2023; s.7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and s.66, IT Act, 2000 for cyber fraud of Rs.3.81 crores – Appellant-accused sought default bail

Subjects

Default bailNon‑filing of additional copies of charge‑sheetBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha SanhitaSection 187(3) BNSSSection 193(8) BNSSCyber fraudCharge‑sheet filingRight to bail

Judgment

[2026] 7 S.C.R. 538 : 2026 INSC 666

Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh
v.
Central Bureau of Investigation
(Criminal Appeal No. 3094 of 2026)
01 July 2026
[Sanjay Karol* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the filing of charge-sheet without additional copies as
required by s.193(8) of the BNSS would entitle the appellant for
the benefit of default bail.

Headnotes†
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – ss.187(3), 193(8) –
Default Bail – Non-filing of charge-sheet without additional
copies, does not entitle the accused for the benefit of default
bail – FIR u/s.61(2) r/w ss.318, 336 and 340, BNS, 2023; s.7,
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and s.66, IT Act, 2000 for
cyber fraud of Rs.3.81 crores – Appellant-accused sought
default bail u/s.187(3), BNSS contending that non-filing and
non-supply of the chargesheet to him within the statutory
period made him eligible for default bail – Application
dismissed by Special Judge, CBI – Appellant filed revision
application, dismissed by High Court – Correctness:
Held: Courts below rightly held that the non-filing of a copy of
the charge-sheet cannot become a ground for default bail –
Non-filing of additional copies of the charge-sheet u/s.193(8) would
not vitiate the charge-sheet/police report itself – As was the case
under the erstwhile CrPC, the position under BNSS is to remain
that the right to default bail arises when the charge-sheet is not
filed within a period of sixty or ninety days, as applicable – Once
the charge-sheet is filed, in compliance with the form prescribed
u/s.193(3) BNSS, within the aforesaid period, the right to default
bail ceases – Non-compliance with s.193(8), BNSS cannot be
construed to give the same result as s.187(3) of the BNSS –
Appellant not entitled to default bail – Charge-sheet/police report

* Author
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 539

Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

was filed within the prescribed statutory time before the magistrate
on 02.09.2025 – The contents thereof, being in compliance with
s.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 – Moreover, cognizance was also taken on the
charge-sheet filed – This order has not been challenged to date,
implying that the contents of the charge-sheet are in accordance
with law – Impugned order, affirmed. [Paras 23, 26, 27, 29]
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – ss.187(3), 193(8),
230 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.167, 173, 207 –
Default Bail – Principles governing, enumerated – Constitution
of India – Art.21. [Para 20]

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – ss.187(3), 193(8),
230 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.167, 173, 207 –
Default Bail:
Held: The section(s) governing default bail, i.e., s.167(2) of the
CrPC and s.187(3) of the BNSS are substantially identical – They
only differ in phraseology; however, the import thereof remains
the same – When it comes to filing a police report, u/s.173 of
the CrPC and s.193, of the BNSS, the form thereof remains
substantially same – An addition is s.193(8) of the BNSS, whereby
the investigating officer is required to file additional copies of the
report, for supply to the accused – For supply of the police report
and other documents to the accused, a timeline has been instituted
of fourteen days from the date of production or appearance of the
accused u/s.230 of the BNSS. [Para 19]

Case Law Cited
Saravanan v. State [2020] 8 SCR 1035 : (2020) 9 SCC 101; Fakhrey
Alam v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2021] 2 SCR 1000 : (2021) 20 SCC
636; The State Through Central Bureau of Investigation v. T. Gangi
Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy [2023] 1 SCR 741 : (2023) 4 SCC
253; Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra
and Anr. [2013] 1 SCR 1037 : (2013) 3 SCC 77; Serious Fraud
Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi & Ors. [2022] 1 SCR 597 : (2023)
15 SCC 311; Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam [2017] 8 SCR
785 : (2017) 15 SCC 67; Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab [2020]
12 SCR 875 : (2020) 10 SCC 616; Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh
540 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Samra @ Jasbir & Ors. v. National Investigation Agency [2023]
6 SCR 1 : (2023) 17 SCC 48; Central Bureau of Investigation v.
Kapil Wadhawan & Anr. [2024] 1 SCR 677 : (2024) 3 SCC 734;
Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai [2002] 2 SCR 889 :
(2002) 5 SCC 82; Narendra Kumar Amin v. CBI and Ors (2015)
3 SCC 417 – relied on.

List of Acts
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988; Information Technology Act, 2000.

List of Keywords
Default bail; Not entitled to default bail; Default bail rejected; Not
providing copy of charge-sheet not a ground for grant of default
bail; Non-filing of copy of charge-sheet not a ground for default
bail; Non-filing of additional copies of charge-sheet does not vitiate
chargesheet/police report; Non-supply of charge-sheet within
statutory period; Right to default bail; Section 187(3), BNSS;
Section 193(8) of BNSS; Cyber fraud; Mule company; Transfer
of proceeds of cybercrime; Digital arrest; Custom fraud; Phishing
attacks to transfer money; Cyber criminals; Right to default bail
extinguished.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
3094 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.02.2026 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in CRA No. 475 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Ritesh Kalra, Rahul Kalangiwale, Anish Khandekar, Ms. Uroosa
Shaikh, Ms. Vidhi Pankaj Thaker.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Satya Darshi Sanjay, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Annam
Venkatesh, Zoheb Hossian, Madhav Sinhal, Aman Jha, Ms. Nikita
Sethi.
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 541

Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Sanjay Karol, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned
judgment and order dated 06.02.2026 in CRA No. 475 of 2025 passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, whereby the plea of the
appellant - accused for default bail came to be dismissed in connection
with FIR No. RC0682025E00041 dated 04.07.2025 registered under
Sections 61(2) read with 318, 336 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 20232; Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. The subject FIR came to be registered against (i) SP Cargo and
Courier Services Pvt. Ltd; (ii) Sudhir Palande; (iii) Unknown private
persons, and (iv) Unknown bank officials. The case set in the FIR
is that reliable information was received by the Central Bureau
of Investigation3, Mumbai that unknown cyber criminals are using
sophisticated digital means to extort money from individuals. This has
included using tools for impersonation and creating forged documents.
Further, they are being assisted by bank officials for the deposit of
the cyber fraud proceeds into their bank accounts. The bank officials
were abusing their official positions by opening and operating mule
accounts based on forged KYC documents, without proper verification.
4. Specifically, SP Cargo and Courier Services Pvt. Ltd. is one mule
company, whose bank account was used for deposit and further
transfer of proceeds of cybercrime by its operator Mr. Sudhir Palande.
In conspiracy with cyber criminals, innocent people were cheated by
methods such as digital arrest, custom fraud and phishing attacks to
transfer money into the said account. On 02.07.2025, an amount of
3.81 crores was transferred into the said account and the said amount
was further transferred to other mule accounts by Mr. Sudhir Palande.
For this, he received commission of lakhs of rupees as consideration.

1 Hereinafter ‘subject FIR’.
2 Hereinafter ‘BNS’.
3 Hereinafter ‘CBI’.
542 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

5. The case put forth by the CBI against the appellant herein, Mr.
Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh, is that he assisted the main accused,
Mr. Sudhir Palande, with logistical support. He transported cheque
books, ATM cards and SIM cards used for the above offences. He
was privy to the criminal conspiracy and received a consideration
from them. Moreover, he also facilitated payments for the conspirators
and the mobile phones used for the transfers on 02.07.2025 are in
the possession of the appellant.
6. At this stage, certain undisputed dates are relevant. The appellant
was taken into custody on 13.07.2025 at CBI Office, Nagpur. On
the same day, he was presented before Special Judge, CBI, Nagpur
and transit remand was obtained to Special Judge, CBI, Mumbai. On
14.07.2025, he was presented before Special Judge, CBI, Mumbai
and was remanded to police custody till 19.07.2025. On 19.07.2025,
the Special Judge extended his police custody till the next day.
Thereafter, on 20.07.2025, he was sent to judicial custody.
7. Meanwhile, the appellant sought regular bail which came to be
numbered as CBI Bail Application No. 714 of 2025 in Remand
Application No. 951 of 2025, but was dismissed vide order dated
25.07.2025 by Special Judge, CBI.
8. On 02.09.2025, prosecution filed chargesheet against the appellant
along with other accused persons namely, Sudhir Palande and Yash
Thakur under Sections 61(2) read with 318, 319, 336, 340 of the BNS
and Sections 66, 66D of the IT Act. A copy thereof was supplied to
the appellant on 23.09.2025.
9. Pertinently, it is the case of the appellant that the copies of the
charge-sheet along with documents related thereto were not filed and
supplied to him within the statutory period. Hence, he became eligible
for default bail on 11.09.2025, for copies of the chargesheet had still
not been filed or supplied to him. Consequently, on 17.09.2025 the
appellant filed an application seeking default bail under Section 187(3)
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20234 before Special
Judge, CBI which, Vide order dated 25.09.2025 was dismissed by
the Special Judge, CBI, Greater Mumbai, observing that the appellant
had failed to point out any authoritative ruling, entitling an accused

4 Hereinafter ‘BNSS’.
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 543

Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

to default bail, on the ground of non-filing of certain documents or
non-supply of the chargesheet to the accused.
10. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant preferred a revision application
bearing number 475 of 2025 before the High Court of Judicature
at Bombay.
11. Meanwhile, on 18.10.2025 cognizance of offences under Sections
318, 319, 336 and 340 of BNS and Sections 66, 66D of the IT Act
was taken by the Special Judge, CBI.
12. The High Court vide the impugned order dated 06.02.2026 dismissed
the revision application of the appellant, observing that the benefit
of default bail would arise only when the chargesheet is not filed
within the prescribed period. Furthermore, not providing a copy of
the charge sheet is not a ground for the grant of default bail.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
ASG for the respondent CBI. The appellant has submitted that the
requirement to file copies of the chargesheet under Section 193(8)
of the BNSS is mandatory in nature. Moreover, the legislative intent
in such requirement being mandatory is fortified by Section 230 of
the BNSS, which requires supply of a copy of the police report to
the accused within fourteen days of production or appearance of
the accused.
14. Per Contra, the CBI has submitted that this Court has categorically
held that the right to statutory bail exists only when the police fails
to file chargesheet within the prescribed period of sixty/ninety days.
Furthermore, for compliance with Section 230 BNSS, a copy of the
chargesheet was supplied to the Magistrate, to be supplied to the
appellant on 23.09.2025 within three days of appearance before the
Magistrate, which was on 20.09.2025.
15. The issue which arises for consideration is whether the filing of
charge-sheet without additional copies as required by Section 193(8)
of the BNSS would entitle the appellant for the benefit of default bail?
16. At the outset, we deem it appropriate to extract the statutory provisions
concerning default bail in the BNSS and corresponding sections of
the erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code, 19735. The relevant portion

5 Hereinafter ‘CrPC’.
544 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of Section 167 of the CrPC and the corresponding Section 187 of
the BNSS reads:

Section 167 CrPC Section 187 BNSS
167. Procedure when investigation Section 187. Procedure when
cannot be completed in twenty- investigation cannot be completed
four hours. in twenty-four hours.
… …
(2) The Magistrate to whom an (3) The Magistrate may authorise
accused person is forwarded under the detention of the accused person,
this section may, whether he has beyond the period of fifteen days, if
or has not jurisdiction to try the he is satisfied that adequate grounds
case, from time to time, authorise exist for doing so, but no Magistrate
the detention of the accused in shall authorise the detention of the
such custody as such Magistrate accused person in custody under
thinks fit, for a term not exceeding this sub-section for a total period
fifteen days in the whole; and if he exceeding—
has no jurisdiction to try the case
or commit it for trial, and considers (i) ninety days, where the
further detention unnecessary, investigation relates to an offence
he may order the accused to be punishable with death, imprisonment
forwarded to a Magistrate having for life or imprisonment for a term of
such jurisdiction: ten years or more;

Provided that— (ii) sixty days, where the investigation
relates to any other offence, and, on
(a) the Magistrate may authorise the the expiry of the said period of ninety
detention of the accused person, days, or sixty days, as the case may
otherwise than in the custody of be, the accused person shall be
the police, beyond the period of released on bail if he is prepared
fifteen days, if he is satisfied that to and does furnish bail, and every
adequate grounds exist for doing so,
person released on bail under this
but no Magistrate shall authorise the
sub-section shall be deemed to be
detention of the accused person in
so released under the provisions of
custody under this paragraph for a
Chapter XXXV for the purposes of
total period exceeding—
that Chapter.
(i) ninety days, where the
(4) No Magistrate shall authorise
investigation relates to an offence
detention of the accused in custody
punishable with death, imprisonment
of the police under this section
for life or imprisonment for a term of
unless the accused is produced
not less than ten years;
before him in person for the first
(ii) sixty days, where the investigation time and subsequently every time till
relates to any other offence, the accused remains in the custody
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 545

Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

and, on the expiry of the said period of the police, but the Magistrate
of ninety days, or sixty days, as the may extend further detention in
case may be, the accused person judicial custody on production of the
shall be released on bail if he is accused either in person or through
prepared to and does furnish bail, the audio-video electronic means.
and every person released on bail
under this sub-section shall be
deemed to be so released under the
provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the
purposes of that Chapter.

17. The relevant provisions governing a charge-sheet are Section 173
of the CrPC and corresponding Section 193 of the BNSS. They are
extracted hereunder:

Section 173 CrPC Section 193 BNSS
Section 173. Report of police Section 193. Report of police
officer on completion of officer on completion of
investigation. investigation.
… …
(2)(i) As soon as it is completed, (3) (i) As soon as the investigation is
the officer in charge of the police completed, the officer in charge of the
station shall forward to a Magistrate police station shall forward, including
empowered to take cognizance of
through electronic communication
the offence on a police report, a
to a Magistrate empowered to take
report in the form prescribed by the
State Government, stating— cognizance of the offence on a police
report, a report in the form as the
(a) the names of the parties; State Government may, by rules
(b) the nature of the information; provide, stating—
(c) the names of the persons who (a) the names of the parties;
appear to be acquainted with the
(b) the nature of the information;
circumstances of the case;
(c) the names of the persons who
(d) whether any offence appears
to have been committed and, if so, appear to be acquainted with the
by whom; circumstances of the case;

(e) whether the accused has been (d) whether any offence appears
arrested; to have been committed and, if so,
by whom;
(f) whether he has been released on
his bond and, if so, whether with or (e) whether the accused has been
without sureties; arrested;
546 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(g) whether he has been forwarded (f) whether the accused has been
in custody under Section 170; released on his bond or bail
bond;
(h) whether the report of medical
examination of the woman has been (g) whether the accused has been
attached where investigation relates forwarded in custody under section
to an offence under [Sections 376, 190;
Section 376-A, Section 376-AB,
(h) whether the report of medical
Section 376-B, Section 376-C,
examination of the woman has been
Section 376-D, Section 376-DA,
attached where investigation relates
Section 376-DB] [or Section 376-E
to an offence under sections 64, 65,
of the Indian Penal Code].]
66, 67, 68, 70 or section 71 of the
… Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023;
(5) When such report is in respect of …
a case to which section 170 applies,
(8) Subject to the provisions
the police officer shall forward to the
contained in sub-section (7), the
Magistrate along with the report -
police officer investigating the case
(a) all documents or relevant extracts shall also submit such number of
thereof on which the prosecution copies of the police report along with
proposes to rely other than those other documents duly indexed to the
already sent to the Magistrate during Magistrate for supply to the accused
investigation; as required under section 230:
(b) the statements recorded under Provided that supply of report and
section 161 of all the persons other documents by electronic
whom the prosecution proposes to communication shall be considered
examine as its witnesses. as duly served.

18. Reference has also been made to Section 230 of the BNSS and
the corresponding Section 207 of the CrPC which read as under:

Section 207 CrPC Section 230 BNSS
Section 207. Supply to the Section 230. Supply to accused
accused of copy of police report of copy of police report and other
and other documents. documents.
In any case where the proceeding In any case where the proceeding
has been instituted on a police has been instituted on a police
report, the Magistrate shall without report, the Magistrate shall without
delay furnish to the accused, free delay, and in no case beyond
of cost, a copy of each of the fourteen days from the date of
following:— production or appearance of the
accused, furnish to the accused
(i) the police report;
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 547

Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

(ii) the first information report and the victim (if represented by
recorded under Section 154; an advocate) free of cost, a copy
of each of the following:—
(iii) the statements recorded under
sub-section (3) of Section 161 of (i) the police report;
all persons whom the prosecution
(ii) the first information report
proposes to examine as its
recorded under section 173;
witnesses, excluding therefrom any
part in regard to which a request for (iii) the statements recorded under
such exclusion has been made by sub-section (3) of section 180 of
the police officer under sub-section all persons whom the prosecution
(6) of Section 173; proposes to examine as its
witnesses, excluding therefrom any
(iv) the confessions and statements,
part in regard to which a request for
if any, recorded under Section 164;
such exclusion has been made by
(v) any other document or relevant the police officer under sub-section
extract thereof forwarded to the (7) of section 193;
Magistrate with the police report
(iv) the confessions and statements,
under sub-section (5) of Section 173:
if any, recorded under section 183;
(v) any other document or relevant
extract thereof forwarded to the
Magistrate with the police report
under sub-section (6) of section 193:

19. On a conjoint reading of the above sections, we come to the following
conclusions:
(a) The section(s) governing default bail, i.e., Section 167(2) of
the CrPC and Section 187(3) of the BNSS are substantially
identical. They only differ in phraseology; however, the import
thereof remains the same;
(b) When it comes to filing a police report, under Section 173 of the
CrPC and Section 193 of the BNSS, the form thereof remains
substantially same. An addition is Section 193(8) of the BNSS,
whereby the investigating officer is required to file additional
copies of the report, for supply to the accused; and
(c) For supply of the police report and other documents to the
accused, a timeline has been instituted of fourteen days from
the date of production or appearance of the accused under
Section 230 of the BNSS.
548 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

20. At this stage, we find it relevant to enumerate certain principles
concerning the relief of default bail, as expounded by various
pronouncements of this Court:
a) The right to default bail is an indefeasible right that flows from
Article 21 of the Constitution. [Saravanan v. State6; Fakhrey
Alam v. State of Uttar Pradesh7];
b) The grant of default bail to an accused is not a release from
custody on merits, but on the failure of the investigating agency
to file the chargesheet within a period of sixty or ninety days,
as prescribed. [State v. T. Gangi Reddy8];
c) The right to default bail comes to an end upon filing of the
chargesheet within the prescribed time period. [Suresh Kumar
Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra and Anr9] +
[SFIO v. Rahul Modi10]
d) The object behind the provision for default bail is to ensure
expeditious investigation and prevent laxity therein. [T. Gangi
Reddy (Supra)] and
e) An application for default bail may also be made orally. Courts
cannot be too technical in matters of personal liberty. [Rakesh
Kumar Paul v. State of Assam11; Bikramjit Singh v. State
of Punjab12]
21. Having considered the above statutory provisions and pronouncements
of the Court, we are of the view that simple non-filing of additional
copies of the chargesheet/police report will not entitle the appellant
to the relief of default bail. This Court while considering default bail
under the erstwhile CrPC has expounded that the relief of default
bail is limited to non-filing of the charge-sheet itself and once the
charge-sheet is filed in its proper form, the question of default bail

6 (2020) 9 SCC 101.
7 (2021) 20 SCC 636.
8 (2023) 4 SCC 253.
9 (2013) 3 SCC 77.
10 (2023) 15 SCC 311
11 (2017) 15 SCC 67.
12 (2020) 10 SCC 616.
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 549

Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

does not arise. This Court in Judgebir Singh v. NIA13 had observed
as follows:
“33. The scheme of CrPC as noticed above clearly
delineates that the provisions of Section 167CrPC give
due regard to the personal liberty of a person. Without
submission of charge-sheet within 60 days or 90 days as
may be applicable, an accused cannot be detained by the
police. The provision gives due recognition to the personal
liberty. However, as explained by this Court in Dinesh
Dalmia v. CBI [Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI, (2007) 8 SCC 770 :
(2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 36] , such a right of default bail although
a valuable right, yet the same is a conditional one, the
condition precedent being pendency of the investigation.
Therefore, once the 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.”
(emphasis supplied)

22. More recently, we place reliance on the exposition of this Court in
CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan14, wherein this Court expounded that even
in the scenario that all documents relied upon by the prosecution
are not filed with the charge-sheet, the same would not invalidate
or vitiate the chargesheet itself. It was observed:
“23. The benefit of proviso appended to sub-section (2)
of Section 167 of the Code would be available to the
offender only when a charge-sheet is not filed and the
investigation is kept pending against him. Once however,
a charge-sheet is filed, the said right ceases. It may be
noted that the right of the investigating officer to pray
for further investigation in terms of sub-section (8) of
Section 173 is not taken away only because a charge-
sheet is filed under sub-section (2) thereof against the
accused. Though ordinarily all documents relied upon
by the prosecution should accompany the charge-sheet,

13 (2023) 17 SCC 48.
14 (2024) 3 SCC 734.
550 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

nonetheless for some reasons, if all the documents are
not filed along with the charge-sheet, that reason by itself
would not invalidate or vitiate the charge-sheet. It is also
well settled that the court takes cognizance of the offence
and not the offender. Once from the material produced
along with the charge-sheet, the court is satisfied about
the commission of an offence and takes cognizance
of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it
is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms
of Section 173(8) is pending or not. The pendency of
the further investigation qua the other accused or for
production of some documents not available at the time
of filing of charge-sheet would neither vitiate the charge-
sheet, nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to
get default bail on the ground that the charge-sheet was
an incomplete charge-sheet or that the charge-sheet was
not filed in terms of Section 173(2)CrPC.”
(emphasis supplied)

23. Applying the aforesaid exposition of law, in our considered view,
the non-filing of additional copies of the charge-sheet under Section
193(8) would not vitiate the chargesheet/police report itself. As was
the case under the erstwhile CrPC, the position under BNSS is to
remain that the right to default bail arises when the chargesheet is
not filed within a period of sixty or ninety days, as applicable. Once
the chargesheet is filed, in compliance with the form prescribed
under Section 193(3) BNSS, within the aforesaid period, the right
to default bail ceases. Non-compliance with Section 193(8) of the
BNSS cannot be construed to give the same result as Section
187(3) of the BNSS.
24. Furthermore, the aforesaid reasoning is in line with the exposition
of this Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai15. This
Court, while construing Section 173(5) of the CrPC which required
supporting documents and witness statements to be supplied to
the Magistrate along with the police report, held this section to be
directory in nature. It was observed:

15 (2002) 5 SCC 82
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 551

Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

“7. From the aforesaid sub-sections, it is apparent that
normally, the investigating officer is required to produce
all the relevant documents at the time of submitting the
charge-sheet. At the same time, as there is no specific
prohibition, it cannot be held that the additional documents
cannot be produced subsequently. If some mistake is
committed in not producing the relevant documents at
the time of submitting the report or the charge-sheet,
it is always open to the investigating officer to produce
the same with the permission of the court. In our view,
considering the preliminary stage of prosecution and the
context in which the police officer is required to forward
to the Magistrate all the documents or the relevant
extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to
rely, the word “shall” used in sub-section (5) cannot be
interpreted as mandatory, but as directory. Normally,
the documents gathered during the investigation upon
which the prosecution wants to rely are required to be
forwarded to the Magistrate, but if there is some omission,
it would not mean that the remaining documents cannot
be produced subsequently. Analogous provision under
Section 173(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
was considered by this Court in Narayan Rao v. State
of A.P. [AIR 1957 SC 737 : 1958 SCR 283 : 1957 Cri
LJ 1320] (SCR at p. 293) and it was held that the word
“shall” occurring in sub-section (4) of Section 173 and
sub-section (3) of Section 207-A is not mandatory but
only directory. Further, the scheme of sub-section (8) of
Section 173 also makes it abundantly clear that even
after the charge-sheet is submitted, further investigation,
if called for, is not precluded. If further investigation is not
precluded then there is no question of not permitting the
prosecution to produce additional documents which were
gathered prior to or subsequent to the investigation. In
such cases, there cannot be any prejudice to the accused.
Hence, the impugned order passed by the Special Court
cannot be sustained.
(emphasis supplied)
552 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

25. Similarly, this Court in Narendra Kumar Amin v. CBI and Ors16
while rejecting the plea for default bail on the contention that the
chargesheet therein had not been filed with the full set of documents
had observed that as the police report was in compliance with
requirement of Section 173(2) and within the stipulated time period
of ninety days, the High Court has rightly rejected bail:
“15. …. On the contrary, the three-Judge Bench of this
Court in the decision in CBI v. R.S. Pai [(2002) 5 SCC
82 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 950] case, after referring to the earlier
judgment of the coordinate Bench in Narayan Rao case
[Narayan Rao v. State of A.P., AIR 1957 SC 737 : 1957
Cri LJ 1320 : 1958 SCR 283] categorically held that the
word “shall” used in sub-section (5) cannot be interpreted
as mandatory, but directory. The said statement of law is
made after considering the provisions of Section 2(r) read
with Sections 173(5) and (8) CrPC. Therefore, filing of
the police report containing the particulars as mentioned
under Section 173(2) amounted to completion of filing of
the report before the learned ACJM, cognizance is taken
and registered the same. The contention of the appellant
that the police report filed in this case is not as per the
legal requirement under Sections 173(2) and (5) CrPC
which entitled him for default bail, was rightly rejected by
the High Court and does not call for any interference by
this Court.”
(emphasis supplied)

26. In the above backdrop, we are of the considered view that the present
appellant is not entitled to the relief of default bail. Undoubtedly, it
is borne from the record that the chargesheet/police report stood
filed within the prescribed statutory time before the magistrate on
02.09.2025. 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. Moreover, it is also a matter of record that cognizance
has also been taken on the chargesheet filed by the investigating

16 (2015) 3 SCC 417.
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 553

Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

agency. This order has not been challenged to date, thereby implying
that the contents of the charge-sheet are in accordance with law.
27. Consequently, in our view, the Courts below have rightly held that the
non-filing of a copy of the chargesheet cannot become a ground for
default bail and the submission of the appellant cannot be accepted.
28. Before parting with this appeal, we deem it appropriate to consider
Crl. M.P. No. 161327 of 2026 wherein the appellant submits that
his prayer for regular bail has not been considered in view of the
present appeal. We clarify that the regular bail application of the
appellant is to be considered on its own merits, in accordance with
law, independent of this appeal and observations made herein. As
observed above, consideration of default bail is not one on merits.
29. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed. The impugned
order dated 06.02.2026 in CRA No. 475 of 2025 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay is affirmed.
30. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey