Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
- Court
- Supreme Court
2026 INSC 666
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2026
(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) NO. 4333 OF 2026)
SHAURYA SUNIL KUMAR SINGH … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and
order dated 06.02.2026 in CRA No. 475 of 2025 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, whereby the plea of the appellant - accused for default bail
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.07.01
15:10:15 IST
Reason:
1
came to be dismissed in connection with FIR No. RC0682025E0004 dated
1
Hereinafter ‘subject FIR’.
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4333 of 2026 Page 1 of 14
04.07.2025 registered under Sections 61(2) read with 318, 336 and 340 of the
2
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ; Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. The subject FIR came to be registered against (i) SP Cargo and Courier
Services Pvt. Ltd; (ii) Sudhir Palande; (iii) Unknown private persons, and (iv)
Unknown bank officials. The case set in the FIR is that reliable information was
3
received by the Central Bureau of Investigation , Mumbai that unknown cyber
criminals are using sophisticated digital means to extort money from individuals.
This has included using tools for impersonation and creating forged documents.
Further, they are being assisted by bank officials for the deposit of the cyber fraud
proceeds into their bank accounts. The bank officials were abusing their official
positions by opening and operating mule accounts based on forged KYC documents,
without proper verification.
4. Specifically, SP Cargo and Courier Services Pvt. Ltd. is one mule company,
whose bank account was used for deposit and further transfer of proceeds of
cybercrime by its operator Mr. Sudhir Palande. In conspiracy with cyber criminals,
innocent people were cheated by methods such as digital arrest, custom fraud and
phishing attacks to transfer money into the said account. On 02.07.2025, an amount
of 3.81 crores was transferred into the said account and the said amount was further
transferred to other mule accounts by Mr. Sudhir Palande. For this, he received
commission of lakhs of rupees as consideration.
2
Hereinafter ‘BNS’.
3
Hereinafter ‘CBI’.
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4333 of 2026 Page 2 of 14
5. The case put forth by the CBI against the appellant herein, Mr. Shaurya Sunil
Kumar Singh, is that he assisted the main accused, Mr. Sudhir Palande, with
logistical support. He transported cheque books, ATM cards and SIM cards used for
the above offences. He was privy to the criminal conspiracy and received a
consideration from them. Moreover, he also facilitated payments for the conspirators
and the mobile phones used for the transfers on 02.07.2025 are in the possession of
the appellant.
6. At this stage, certain undisputed dates are relevant. The appellant was taken
into custody on 13.07.2025 at CBI Office, Nagpur. On the same day, he was
presented before Special Judge, CBI, Nagpur and transit remand was obtained to
Special Judge, CBI, Mumbai. On 14.07.2025, he was presented before Special
Judge, CBI, Mumbai and was remanded to police custody till 19.07.2025. On
19.07.2025, the Special Judge extended his police custody till the next day.
Thereafter, on 20.07.2025, he was sent to judicial custody.
7. Meanwhile, the appellant sought regular bail which came to be numbered as
CBI Bail Application No. 714 of 2025 in Remand Application No. 951 of 2025, but
was dismissed vide order dated 25.07.2025 by Special Judge, CBI.
8. On 02.09.2025, prosecution filed chargesheet against the appellant along with
other accused persons namely, Sudhir Palande and Yash Thakur under Sections
61(2) read with 318, 319, 336, 340 of the BNS and Sections 66, 66D of the IT Act.
A copy thereof was supplied to the appellant on 23.09.2025.
9. Pertinently, it is the case of the appellant that the copies of the charge-sheet
along with documents related thereto were not filed and supplied to him within the
statutory period. Hence, he became eligible for default bail on 11.09.2025, for copies
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4333 of 2026 Page 3 of 14
of the chargesheet had still not been filed or supplied to him. Consequently, on
17.09.2025 the appellant filed an application seeking default bail under Section
4
187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before Special Judge, CBI
which, Vide order dated 25.09.2025 was dismissed by the Special Judge, CBI,
Greater Mumbai, observing that the appellant had failed to point out any
authoritative ruling, entitling an accused to default bail, on the ground of non-filing
of certain documents or non-supply of the chargesheet to the accused.
10. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant preferred a revision application bearing
number 475 of 2025 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
11. Meanwhile, on 18.10.2025 cognizance of offences under Sections 318, 319,
336 and 340 of BNS and Sections 66, 66D of the IT Act was taken by the Special
Judge, CBI.
12. The High Court vide the impugned order dated 06.02.2026 dismissed the
revision application of the appellant, observing that the benefit of default bail would
arise only when the chargesheet is not filed within the prescribed period.
Furthermore, not providing a copy of the charge sheet is not a ground for the grant
of default bail.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned ASG for
the respondent CBI. The appellant has submitted that the requirement to file copies
of the chargesheet under Section 193(8) of the BNSS is mandatory in nature.
Moreover, the legislative intent in such requirement being mandatory is fortified by
4
Hereinafter ‘BNSS’.
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4333 of 2026 Page 4 of 14
Section 230 of the BNSS, which requires supply of a copy of the police report to the
accused within fourteen days of production or appearance of the accused.
14. Per Contra , the CBI has submitted that this Court has categorically held that
the right to statutory bail exists only when the police fails to file chargesheet within
the prescribed period of sixty/ninety days. Furthermore, for compliance with Section
230 BNSS, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the Magistrate, to be supplied
to the appellant on 23.09.2025 within three days of appearance before the
Magistrate, which was on 20.09.2025.
15. The issue which arises for consideration is whether the filing of charge-sheet
without additional copies as required by Section 193(8) of the BNSS would entitle
the appellant for the benefit of default bail?
16. At the outset, we deem it appropriate to extract the statutory provisions
concerning default bail in the BNSS and corresponding sections of the erstwhile
5
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 . The relevant portion of Section 167 of the CrPC
and the corresponding Section 187 of the BNSS reads:
Section 167 CrPC Section 187 BNSS
167. Procedure when investigation cannot be
completed in twenty-four hours .
…
Section 187. Procedure when investigation
cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.
…
(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person
is forwarded under this section may, whether
he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case,
from time to time, authorise the detention of
the accused in such custody as such Magistrate
thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days
in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try
the case or commit it for trial, and considers
further detention unnecessary, he may order
(3) The Magistrate may authorise the detention
of the accused person, beyond the period of
fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate
grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate
shall authorise the detention of the accused
person in custody under this sub-section for a
total period exceeding—
(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates
to an offence punishable with death,
5
Hereinafter ‘CrPC’.
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4333 of 2026 Page 5 of 14
the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate
having such jurisdiction:
Provided that—
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a
term of ten years or more;
(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates
to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the
said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the
case may be, the accused person shall be
released on bail if he is prepared to and does
furnish bail, and every person released on bail
under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so
released under the provisions of Chapter
XXXV for the purposes of that Chapter.
(4) No Magistrate shall authorise detention of
the accused in custody of the police under this
section unless the accused is produced before
him in person for the first time and
subsequently every time till the accused
remains in the custody of the police, but the
Magistrate may extend further detention in
judicial custody on production of the accused
either in person or through the audio-video
electronic means.
( a ) the Magistrate may authorise the detention
of the accused person, otherwise than in the
custody of the police, beyond the period of
fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate
grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate
shall authorise the detention of the accused
person in custody under this paragraph for a
total period exceeding—
( i ) ninety days, where the investigation relates
to an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a
term of not less than ten years;
( ii ) sixty days, where the investigation relates
to any other offence,
and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety
days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the
accused person shall be released on bail if he
is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every
person released on bail under this sub-section
shall be deemed to be so released under the
provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes
of that Chapter.
17. The relevant provisions governing a charge-sheet are Section 173 of the CrPC
and corresponding Section 193 of the BNSS. They are extracted hereunder:
Section 173 CrPC Section 193 BNSS
Section 173. Report of police officer on
completion of investigation.
…
(2)( i ) As soon as it is completed, the officer in
charge of the police station shall forward to a
Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of
the offence on a police report, a report in the
form prescribed by the State Government,
stating—
( a ) the names of the parties;
( b ) the nature of the information;
( c ) the names of the persons who appear to be
acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
Section 193. Report of police officer on
completion of investigation.
…
(3) (i) As soon as the investigation is
completed, the officer in charge of the police
station shall forward, including through
electronic communication to a Magistrate
empowered to take cognizance of the offence
on a police report, a report in the form as the
State Government may, by rules provide,
stating—
(a) the names of the parties;
(b) the nature of the information;
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4333 of 2026 Page 6 of 14
( d ) whether any offence appears to have been
committed and, if so, by whom;
( e ) whether the accused has been arrested;
( f ) whether he has been released on his bond
and, if so, whether with or without sureties;
( g ) whether he has been forwarded in custody
under Section 170;
( h ) whether the report of medical examination
of the woman has been attached where
investigation relates to an offence
under [Sections 376, Section 376-A, Section
376-AB, Section 376-B, Section 376-C,
Section 376-D, Section 376-DA, Section 376-
DB] [or Section 376-E of the Indian Penal
Code].]
…
(5) When such report is in respect of a case to
which section 170 applies, the police officer
shall forward to the Magistrate along with the
report -
(a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof
on which the prosecution proposes to rely
other than those already sent to the Magistrate
during investigation;
(b) the statements recorded under section 161
of all the persons whom the prosecution
proposes to examine as its witnesses.
(c) the names of the persons who appear to be
acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
(d) whether any offence appears to have been
committed and, if so, by whom;
(e) whether the accused has been arrested;
(f) whether the accused has been released on
his bond or bail bond;
(g) whether the accused has been forwarded in
custody under section 190;
(h) whether the report of medical examination
of the woman has been attached where
investigation relates to an offence under
sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70 or section 71 of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023;
…
(8) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-
section (7), the police officer investigating the
case shall also submit such number of copies
of the police report along with other
documents duly indexed to the Magistrate for
supply to the accused as required under section
230:
Provided that supply of report and other
documents by electronic communication shall
be considered as duly served.
18. Reference has also been made to Section 230 of the BNSS and the
corresponding Section 207 of the CrPC which read as under:
Section 207 CrPC Section 230 BNSS
Section 207. Supply to the accused of copy of
police report and other documents .
In any case where the proceeding has been
instituted on a police report, the Magistrate
shall without delay furnish to the accused, free
of cost, a copy of each of the following:—
( i ) the police report;
( ii ) the first information report recorded under
Section 154;
( iii ) the statements recorded under sub-section
(3) of Section 161 of all persons whom the
prosecution proposes to examine as its
Section 230 . Supply to accused of copy of
police report and other documents.
In any case where the proceeding has been
instituted on a police report, the Magistrate
shall without delay, and in no case beyond
fourteen days from the date of production or
appearance of the accused, furnish to the
accused and the victim (if represented by an
advocate) free of cost, a copy of each of the
following:—
(i) the police report;
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4333 of 2026 Page 7 of 14
witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in
regard to which a request for such exclusion
has been made by the police officer under sub-
section (6) of Section 173;
( iv ) the confessions and statements, if any,
recorded under Section 164;
( v ) any other document or relevant extract
thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the
police report under sub-section (5) of Section
173:
(ii) the first information report recorded under
section 173;
(iii) the statements recorded under sub-section
(3) of section 180 of all persons whom the
prosecution proposes to examine as its
witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in
regard to which a request for such exclusion
has been made by the police officer under sub-
section (7) of section 193;
(iv) the confessions and statements, if any,
recorded under section 183;
(v) any other document or relevant extract
thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the
police report under sub-section (6) of section
193:
19. On a conjoint reading of the above sections, we come to the following
conclusions:
(a) The section(s) governing default bail, i.e., Section 167(2) of the CrPC
and Section 187(3) of the BNSS are substantially identical. They only differ
in phraseology; however, the import thereof remains the same;
(b) When it comes to filing a police report, under Section 173 of the CrPC
and Section 193 of the BNSS, the form thereof remains substantially same.
An addition is Section 193(8) of the BNSS, whereby the investigating officer
is required to file additional copies of the report, for supply to the accused;
and
(c) For supply of the police report and other documents to the accused, a
timeline has been instituted of fourteen days from the date of production or
appearance of the accused under Section 230 of the BNSS.
20. At this stage, we find it relevant to enumerate certain principles concerning
the relief of default bail, as expounded by various pronouncements of this Court:
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4333 of 2026 Page 8 of 14
a) The right to default bail is an indefeasible right that flows from Article 21
6
of the Constitution. [ Saravanan v. State ; Fakhrey Alam v. State of Uttar
7
Pradesh ];
b) The grant of default bail to an accused is not a release from custody on
merits, but on the failure of the investigating agency to file the chargesheet
within a period of sixty or ninety days, as prescribed. [ State v. T. Gangi
8
Reddy ];
c) The right to default bail comes to an end upon filing of the chargesheet
within the prescribed time period. [ Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v.
9 10
State of Maharashtra and Anr ] + [SFIO v. Rahul Modi ]
d) The object behind the provision for default bail is to ensure expeditious
investigation and prevent laxity therein. [ T. Gangi Reddy (Supra)] and
e) An application for default bail may also be made orally. Courts cannot be
too technical in matters of personal liberty. [ Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State
11 12
of Assam ; Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab ]
21. Having considered the above statutory provisions and pronouncements of the
Court, we are of the view that simple non-filing of additional copies of the
chargesheet/police report will not entitle the appellant to the relief of default bail.
This Court while considering default bail under the erstwhile CrPC has expounded
that the relief of default bail is limited to non-filing of the charge-sheet itself and
6
(2020) 9 SCC 101.
7
(2021) 20 SCC 636.
8
(2023) 4 SCC 253.
9
(2013) 3 SCC 77.
10
(2023) 15 SCC 311
11
(2017) 15 SCC 67.
12
(2020) 10 SCC 616.
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4333 of 2026 Page 9 of 14
once the charge-sheet is filed in its proper form, the question of default bail does not
13
arise. This Court in Judgebir Singh v. NIA had observed as follows:
“33. 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 [Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI, (2007) 8 SCC 770 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 36] , 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.”
(emphasis supplied)
22. More recently, we place reliance on the exposition of this Court in CBI v.
14
Kapil Wadhawan , wherein this Court expounded that even in the scenario that all
documents relied upon by the prosecution are not filed with the charge-sheet, the
same would not invalidate or vitiate the chargesheet itself. It was observed:
“23. 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. It is also well settled that the court
takes cognizance of the offence and not the offender. Once from the material
produced along with the charge-sheet, the court is satisfied about the commission
of an offence and takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the
accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section
173(8) is pending or not. The pendency of the further investigation qua the other
accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing
of charge-sheet would neither vitiate the charge-sheet, nor would it entitle the
accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground that the charge-sheet was
13
(2023) 17 SCC 48.
14
(2024) 3 SCC 734.
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4333 of 2026 Page 10 of 14
an incomplete charge-sheet or that the charge-sheet was not filed in terms of
Section 173(2)CrPC.”
(emphasis supplied)
23. 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. 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.
24. Furthermore, the aforesaid reasoning is in line with the exposition of this
15
Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai . This Court, while
construing Section 173(5) of the CrPC which required supporting documents and
witness statements to be supplied to the Magistrate along with the police report, held
this section to be directory in nature. It was observed:
“7. From the aforesaid sub-sections, it is apparent that normally, the investigating
officer is required to produce all the relevant documents at the time of submitting
the charge-sheet. At the same time, as there is no specific prohibition, it cannot
be held that the additional documents cannot be produced subsequently. If some
mistake is committed in not producing the relevant documents at the time of
submitting the report or the charge-sheet, it is always open to the investigating
officer to produce the same with the permission of the court. In our view,
considering the preliminary stage of prosecution and the context in which the
police officer is required to forward to the Magistrate all the documents or the
relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely, the word
“shall” used in sub-section (5) cannot be interpreted as mandatory, but as
directory. Normally, the documents gathered during the investigation upon which
the prosecution wants to rely are required to be forwarded to the Magistrate, but
15
(2002) 5 SCC 82
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4333 of 2026 Page 11 of 14
if there is some omission, it would not mean that the remaining documents cannot
be produced subsequently. Analogous provision under Section 173(4) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was considered by this Court in Narayan Rao v. State
of A.P. [AIR 1957 SC 737 : 1958 SCR 283 : 1957 Cri LJ 1320] (SCR at p. 293)
and it was held that the word “shall” occurring in sub-section (4) of Section 173
and sub-section (3) of Section 207-A is not mandatory but only directory. Further,
the scheme of sub-section (8) of Section 173 also makes it abundantly clear that
even after the charge-sheet is submitted, further investigation, if called for, is not
precluded. If further investigation is not precluded then there is no question of not
permitting the prosecution to produce additional documents which were gathered
prior to or subsequent to the investigation. In such cases, there cannot be any
prejudice to the accused. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Special Court
cannot be sustained.
(emphasis supplied)
16
25. Similarly, this Court in Narendra Kumar Amin v. CBI and Ors while
rejecting the plea for default bail on the contention that the chargesheet therein had
not been filed with the full set of documents had observed that as the police report
was in compliance with requirement of Section 173(2) and within the stipulated time
period of ninety days, the High Court has rightly rejected bail:
“ 15 . …. On the contrary, the three-Judge Bench of this Court in the decision in
CBI v. R.S. Pai [(2002) 5 SCC 82 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 950] case, after referring to
the earlier judgment of the coordinate Bench in Narayan Rao case [Narayan Rao
v. State of A.P., AIR 1957 SC 737 : 1957 Cri LJ 1320 : 1958 SCR 283]
categorically held that the word “shall” used in sub-section (5) cannot be
interpreted as mandatory, but directory. The said statement of law is made after
considering the provisions of Section 2(r) read with Sections 173(5) and (8) CrPC.
Therefore, filing of the police report containing the particulars as mentioned under
Section 173(2) amounted to completion of filing of the report before the learned
ACJM, cognizance is taken and registered the same. The contention of the
appellant that the police report filed in this case is not as per the legal requirement
under Sections 173(2) and (5) CrPC which entitled him for default bail, was
rightly rejected by the High Court and does not call for any interference by this
Court.”
(emphasis supplied)
16
(2015) 3 SCC 417.
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4333 of 2026 Page 12 of 14
26. In the above backdrop, we are of the considered view that the present appellant
is not entitled to the relief of default bail. Undoubtedly, it is borne from the record
that the chargesheet/police report stood filed within the prescribed statutory time
before the magistrate on 02.09.2025. The contents thereof, being in compliance with
Section 193(3) BNSS. Consequently, on 02.09.2025, the right to default bail became
extinguished and the appellant ought to have applied for regular bail. Moreover, it is
also a matter of record that cognizance has also been taken on the chargesheet filed
by the investigating agency. This order has not been challenged to date, thereby
implying that the contents of the charge-sheet are in accordance with law.
27. Consequently, in our view, the Courts below have rightly held that the non-
filing of a copy of the chargesheet cannot become a ground for default bail and the
submission of the appellant cannot be accepted.
28. Before parting with this appeal, we deem it appropriate to consider Crl. M.P.
No. 161327 of 2026 wherein the appellant submits that his prayer for regular bail
has not been considered in view of the present appeal. We clarify that the regular
bail application of the appellant is to be considered on its own merits, in accordance
with law, independent of this appeal and observations made herein. As observed
above, consideration of default bail is not one on merits.
29. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed. The impugned order
dated 06.02.2026 in CRA No. 475 of 2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature
at Bombay is affirmed.
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4333 of 2026 Page 13 of 14
30. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………..…… J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
………..………………………………..….. J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
New Delhi
July 1, 2026
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4333 of 2026 Page 14 of 14