The Supreme Court of India has ruled that an accused person is not entitled to default bail merely because the investigating agency failed to submit additional copies of the chargesheet as required under Section 193(8) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh dismissed the criminal appeal filed by an accused who challenged a Bombay High Court order rejecting his plea for default bail. The Court held that once a chargesheet in its proper form is filed within the statutory period of 60 or 90 days, the right to default bail is extinguished, and subsequent procedural omissions regarding additional copies do not revive it.
Background of the Case
The case arose from FIR No. RC0682025E0004 registered on July 4, 2025, by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in Mumbai. The charges were registered under Sections 61(2) read with 318, 336, and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS); Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
According to the FIR, the CBI received information that unknown cyber criminals were using sophisticated digital methods, such as impersonation, forged documents, digital arrests, custom fraud, and phishing attacks, to extort money from individuals. They were allegedly assisted by bank officials who abused their positions to open and operate “mule accounts” based on forged KYC documents without proper verification.
One of the mule entities identified was SP Cargo and Courier Services Pvt. Ltd., whose bank account was operated by Sudhir Palande. On July 2, 2025, an amount of 3.81 crores was transferred into this account and further distributed to other accounts, for which Palande allegedly received commissions worth lakhs of rupees.
The CBI accused the appellant, Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh, of providing logistical support to Palande. He allegedly transported cheque books, ATM cards, and SIM cards used in the crimes, was privy to the criminal conspiracy, received financial consideration, facilitated payments, and possessed the mobile phones used for the transfers.
The appellant was arrested on July 13, 2025, in Nagpur, and transit remand was obtained to present him before the Special Judge, CBI, Mumbai. After being held in police custody, he was sent to judicial custody on July 20, 2025. His application for regular bail was dismissed by the Special Judge, CBI, on July 25, 2025.
On September 2, 2025, the CBI filed a chargesheet against the appellant and other accused under Sections 61(2) read with 318, 319, 336, and 340 of the BNS, and Sections 66 and 66D of the IT Act. A copy of the chargesheet was provided to the appellant on September 23, 2025.
The appellant filed an application for default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS on September 17, 2025, claiming that since the complete copies of the chargesheet and related documents were not filed and supplied to him within the statutory period, he became eligible for default bail on September 11, 2025. The Special Judge, CBI, dismissed this application on September 25, 2025, noting that the appellant failed to show any authority entitling an accused to default bail due to the non-supply of copies. The Bombay High Court affirmed this dismissal on February 6, 2026, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant argued that the requirement to submit additional copies of the chargesheet under Section 193(8) of the BNSS is mandatory. They submitted that this intent is supported by Section 230 of the BNSS, which mandates that the police report must be supplied to the accused within 14 days of their production or appearance.
The CBI countered that the statutory right to default bail only exists when the police fail to file a chargesheet within the prescribed 60 or 90 days. The CBI argued that the chargesheet was filed on time, and a copy was supplied to the Magistrate to be handed over to the appellant on September 23, 2025, which was within three days of his appearance before the Magistrate on September 20, 2025, thereby satisfying the requirements of Section 230 BNSS.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the statutory provisions of both the BNSS and the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Court noted that Section 167(2) of the CrPC and Section 187(3) of the BNSS, which govern default bail, are substantially identical. It also observed that Section 193(8) of the BNSS is an addition to the reporting procedure, requiring the investigating officer to submit additional copies of the police report for the accused.
The Court reiterated several established principles of default bail. While recognizing that the right to default bail is an indefeasible right under Article 21 of the Constitution, as held in Saravanan v. State and Fakhrey Alam v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Bench emphasized that this right is conditional. Citing Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra and SFIO v. Rahul Modi, the Court noted that the right to default bail terminates once the chargesheet is filed within the prescribed time.
Analyzing the core issue under the new BNSS framework, the Bench observed:
“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.”
The Bench cited the precedent in Judgebir Singh v. NIA, wherein the Court had observed:
“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, 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.”
The Court also relied on the ruling in CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan, highlighting that:
“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, 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.”
Referencing CBI v. R.S. Pai, the Court noted that provisions requiring the submission of supporting documents along with the chargesheet are directory and not mandatory. It affirmed that this reasoning applies to the current statutory scheme under the BNSS.
The Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant is not entitled to default bail. The Court noted that the CBI had filed the chargesheet on September 2, 2025, well within the statutory period, and its contents complied with Section 193(3) of the BNSS. Upon this filing, the appellant’s right to default bail was extinguished. Furthermore, the Special Judge had already taken cognizance of the chargesheet, and this order had gone unchallenged.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Bombay High Court’s order dated February 6, 2026. The Bench clarified that the appellant’s regular bail application must be considered on its own merits in accordance with the law, independent of this appeal.
Case Details
Case Title: Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4333 of 2026)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Date: July 1, 2026
