Case at a Glance
An accused in a CBI cyber-fraud case (digital arrest, customs fraud, phishing and mule accounts) sought default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was filed without the additional copies that Section 193(8) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 requires. The Supreme Court held that the right to default bail ends once the chargesheet is filed within the prescribed period, and that “simple non-filing of additional copies of the chargesheet/police report will not entitle the appellant to the relief of default bail.” The appeal was dismissed, leaving his regular bail plea to be decided on merits.
The CBI, Mumbai registered an FIR on 4 July 2025 under Sections 61(2) read with 318, 336 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 66 of the IT Act, concerning cyber fraud through ‘digital arrest’, customs fraud, phishing and mule bank accounts. The appellant was alleged to have given logistical support to the main accused by transporting cheque books, ATM cards and SIM cards and facilitating payments. He was arrested at Nagpur on 13 July 2025 and sent to judicial custody on 20 July 2025; his regular bail was rejected on 25 July 2025.
The CBI filed its chargesheet on 2 September 2025 against him and two co-accused, but a copy was supplied to him only on 23 September 2025. On 17 September 2025 he sought default bail, contending that copies were not supplied in time. The Special Judge, CBI rejected it on 25 September 2025, and the Bombay High Court dismissed his revision (CRA No. 475 of 2025) on 6 February 2026.
The Key Question Before the Court
Does filing a chargesheet within time, but without the additional copies required by Section 193(8) BNSS, give the accused an indefeasible right to default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS?
Default Bail Is Linked to Filing the Chargesheet, Not to Supplying Copies
The Court noted that Section 187(3) BNSS is substantially identical in import to Section 167(2) CrPC, and Section 193 BNSS to Section 173 CrPC, save for the additional-copies requirement in Section 193(8). Surveying Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 08 SC CK 0038, Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SC CK 0017, Saravanan v. State, (2020) 10 SC CK 0027, Fakhrey Alam v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 03 SC CK 0055, Judgebir Singh v. NIA, (2023) 05 SC CK 0100, Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 02 SC CK 0026, SFIO v. Rahul Modi, (2019) 03 SC CK 0088, State v. T. Gangi Reddy, (2023) 01 SC CK 0032, Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI, (2007) 09 SC CK 0009, Narendra Kumar Amin v. CBI, (2015) 01 SC CK 0060 and CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan, it reiterated that “The right to default bail comes to an end upon filing of the chargesheet within the prescribed time period.”
Relying on CBI v. R.S. Pai, (2002) 04 SC CK 0033, which held that “the word ‘shall’ used in sub-section (5) cannot be interpreted as mandatory, but as directory,” the Court held that “Non-compliance with Section 193(8) of the BNSS cannot be construed to give the same result as Section 187(3) of the BNSS.” Since the chargesheet was filed on 2 September 2025 within the statutory period and cognizance was taken, “the right to default bail became extinguished and the appellant ought to have applied for regular bail.”
What the Court Actually Held
- Section 187(3) BNSS and Section 167(2) CrPC are substantially identical in import; the right to default bail ends when the chargesheet is filed within the prescribed period.
- Failure to file the additional copies of the chargesheet required by Section 193(8) BNSS does not by itself entitle the accused to default bail.
- Once a chargesheet is filed in time and cognizance taken, the accused must seek regular bail.
- The appeal was dismissed and the Bombay High Court’s order of 6 February 2026 affirmed; the pending regular bail application is to be considered on its own merits.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It is an early Supreme Court ruling on how the new BNSS chargesheet provisions interact with default bail.
- It settles that procedural lapses in supplying copies cannot be converted into a right to release.
- It matters for the growing number of cyber-fraud prosecutions involving digital arrest and mule accounts.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Accused and Families
- Default bail is available only if the chargesheet is not filed within the statutory period; delay in supplying copies is a different issue.
- If the chargesheet has been filed in time, move a regular bail application on merits.
- Delay in supply of copies can be raised before the trial court for compliance, but not as a ground for default bail.
For Counsel
- Compute the statutory period carefully from the remand dates; that, not supply of copies, determines default bail.
- Cite Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh and CBI v. R.S. Pai when opposing default bail on Section 193(8) grounds.
- Where a default bail plea fails, keep a regular bail application ready, as was done here.
Key Takeaways
- Default bail ends once the chargesheet is filed within time.
- Non-filing of additional copies under Section 193(8) BNSS does not trigger default bail.
- The BNSS provisions mirror the CrPC on this issue.
- Regular bail remains available on merits.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is default bail under BNSS?
It is the right of an accused to be released on bail under Section 187(3) BNSS if the investigation is not completed and the chargesheet not filed within the prescribed period; the Court held this is substantially identical to Section 167(2) CrPC.
If the police do not give me a copy of the chargesheet, do I get default bail?
According to this judgment, no. If the chargesheet was filed in time, non-filing of additional copies under Section 193(8) BNSS does not entitle the accused to default bail.
What happens to the appellant now?
His appeal was dismissed, but his regular bail application is to be considered on its own merits.
Conclusion
Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. CBI confirms that the BNSS has not changed the basic rule of default bail: it is a consequence of the investigating agency’s failure to file a chargesheet in time, not of lapses in supplying copies. Those lapses must be cured, but they do not open the prison gates.
Practical takeaway: When a chargesheet is filed within time, do not stake the client’s liberty on a default bail plea over missing copies — file a well-prepared regular bail application.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com