Supreme Court Rejects Default Bail in India Under BNSS

• The Supreme Court has clarified that non-filing of charge sheet copies does not confer default bail.
• Non-compliance with Section 193(8) of the BNSS does not invalidate the charge sheet itself and does not trigger the right to default bail under Section 187(3).
• The right to default bail arises only when the charge sheet itself is not filed within the statutory period, which is 60 or 90 days as applicable.
• Accused individuals must apply for regular bail instead of relying on the default bail provision once a valid charge sheet is filed in the prescribed form.

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 Supreme Court has clarified that non-filing of charge sheet copies does not confer default bail, a ruling that may have significant implications for accused individuals seeking to invoke this right. In a recent judgment, the apex court dismissed an appeal filed by Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh, who had sought default bail in connection with an FIR registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Court's decision was based on its interpretation of Section 193(8) of the BNSS, which mandates the investigating officer to file additional copies of the charge sheet for supply to the accused. However, the Bench held that non-compliance with this provision does not invalidate the charge sheet itself and does not trigger the right to default bail under Section 187(3).

The Supreme Court's ruling is significant because it reaffirms the long-standing legal position under the BNSS that the right to default bail arises only when the charge sheet itself is not filed within the statutory period. This means that even if additional copies of the charge sheet are not supplied to the accused, they cannot claim default bail unless the original charge sheet has been filed beyond the prescribed deadline. The Court's decision also highlights the importance of complying with Section 193(3) of the BNSS, which requires the investigating officer to submit a police report (charge sheet) to the Magistrate in the prescribed format within the stipulated period.

The Supreme Court's ruling has important implications for accused individuals who are seeking default bail in similar cases. As the Court noted, once a valid charge sheet is filed in the prescribed form, the right to default bail comes to an end. This means that accused individuals must apply for regular bail instead of relying on the default bail provision. The ruling also underscores the need for investigating agencies to comply with Section 193(3) of the BNSS and file charge sheets within the statutory period to avoid any potential disputes or challenges.

Lawyers should note that the Supreme Court has clarified that non-filing of charge sheet copies does not confer default bail, and the right to default bail arises only when the charge sheet itself is not filed within the statutory period. This ruling may impact clients who are seeking default bail in similar cases.

Source: Original reporting via Supreme Court Judgments