Facts
The appellant was arrested in connection with a CBI investigation involving alleged cyber fraud, use of mule accounts, forgery, and criminal conspiracy under S.61(2), S.318, S.336 & S.340 BNS, S.7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and S.66 IT Act. He was accused of providing logistical support by transporting cheque books, ATM cards, SIM cards, and facilitating transactions. The charge-sheet was filed within the statutory period on 2 September 2025. However, copies of the charge-sheet and accompanying documents were supplied later. The appellant sought default bail under S.187(3) BNSS, contending that failure to file additional copies as required by S.193(8) BNSS rendered the filing incomplete. The Special Judge and the High Court rejected the plea.
Issues Framed
Whether the filing of a charge-sheet without additional copies required under S.193(8) BNSS entitles an accused to default bail under S.187(3) BNSS.
Court's Reasoning
(a) Legal Rule
The Court held that S.187(3) BNSS is substantially identical to S.167(2) CrPC, preserving the same concept of default bail. The right arises only when the investigation is not completed by filing a charge-sheet within the prescribed period. The addition of S.193(8) BNSS, requiring extra copies for supply to the accused, does not alter the conditions governing default bail.
(b) Precedents Relied Upon
The Court relied upon Judgebir Singh v. NIA, CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan, CBI v. R.S. Pai, Narendra Kumar Amin v. CBI, Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain, State v. T. Gangi Reddy, Saravanan v. State, Fakhrey Alam, Rakesh Kumar Paul, and Bikramjit Singh. These authorities establish that the right to default bail is an indefeasible right flowing from Article 21, but it survives only until a valid charge-sheet is filed within the statutory period.
(c) Application
The Court held that filing additional copies under S.193(8) BNSS is a procedural requirement intended to facilitate supply under S.230 BNSS. Non-compliance with this provision does not invalidate the charge-sheet or equate to non-filing of the police report. Since the charge-sheet filed on 2 September 2025 complied with S.193(3) BNSS, the appellant's statutory right to default bail stood extinguished on that date.
(d) Counterarguments
The appellant argued that S.193(8) and S.230 BNSS are mandatory provisions and their breach should result in default bail. The Court rejected this submission, holding that these provisions regulate procedural supply of documents and cannot enlarge the scope of S.187(3) BNSS. It reaffirmed that omissions relating to supporting documents or copies do not vitiate a charge-sheet filed in compliance with the statutory requirements.
Held
The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the Bombay High Court's order, holding that non-filing or delayed supply of additional copies of the charge-sheet cannot be a ground for default bail. The appellant was left at liberty to pursue regular bail, which must be decided independently on merits.
Ratio
A charge-sheet filed within the statutory period in compliance with S.193(3) BNSS extinguishes the right to default bail under S.187(3) BNSS; non-compliance with S.193(8) BNSS regarding additional copies for supply to the accused does not revive or create such a right.
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 666
Decided on: 1 July 2026
Case Title: Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Sanjay Karol, J.; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.