THE BEYOND OBITER LAW BLOG: Legal News
2 min read
The Supreme Court has held that the non-filing of additional copies of a charge-sheet under Section 193(8) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) does not invalidate the charge-sheet or entitle an accused to statutory default bail. Clarifying the scope of the newly introduced provision, the Court ruled that the right to default bail ceases once a charge-sheet complying with Section 193(3) BNSS is filed within the prescribed statutory period, irrespective of whether additional copies are filed simultaneously.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh.
The appeal arose from a criminal case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation involving allegations of a large-scale cyber fraud racket. According to the prosecution, the accused participated in a criminal conspiracy involving digital arrests, phishing scams and the routing of illicit funds through “mule” bank accounts allegedly opened using forged documents with the assistance of bank officials.
The appellant was alleged to have provided logistical support by transporting cheque books, ATM cards and SIM cards used in the commission of the offences. Following completion of the investigation, the CBI filed the final report before the competent court within the statutory period. The appellant, however, sought default bail on the ground that the investigating agency had failed to file additional copies of the charge-sheet and accompanying documents as contemplated under Section 193(8) BNSS.
The Special Judge rejected the application, and the decision was subsequently affirmed by the Bombay High Court. The appellant thereafter approached the Supreme Court.
Before the Court, the appellant argued that filing the requisite number of copies of the police report and accompanying documents was a mandatory statutory requirement. Since the additional copies had not been filed within the prescribed period, it was contended that the charge-sheet remained incomplete, thereby entitling the accused to default bail.
Rejecting the contention, the Supreme Court held that the legal position under the BNSS remains substantially the same as under the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Bench reiterated that the right to default bail flows from Article 21 of the Constitution and arises only when the investigating agency fails to file the charge-sheet within the statutory period of 60 or 90 days, as applicable.
The Court observed that once the investigation is complete and a police report in the prescribed form is filed before the Magistrate within time, the accused’s indefeasible right to default bail stands extinguished.
Relying upon its earlier decision in CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan (2024), the Court held that the omission to file certain accompanying documents or additional copies does not render the charge-sheet incomplete or invalid for the purposes of default bail.
The Bench observed:
“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... 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 Court further clarified that the requirement under Section 193(8) to file additional copies is directory and not mandatory. A technical omission in filing extra copies cannot be equated with a failure to file the charge-sheet itself, nor can it be used to defeat a completed investigation or confer an undeserved right to statutory bail.
Finding that the investigating agency had filed the charge-sheet in the prescribed form within the statutory timeline and that cognizance had already been taken by the competent court, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts below and dismissed the appeal.
The Court, however, clarified that its ruling would not affect the appellant’s right to seek regular bail, which must be considered independently on its own merits.