M.Alex vs Union of India

CRL RC(MD) No.1153 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On: 07.10.2026
Delivered On: 05.11.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.MURUGESAN
CRL RC(MD) No. 1153 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD010941812026}
AND
CRL MP(MD) No. 13737 of 2026
CRL MP(MD) No. 14068 of 2026
M.Alex ... Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India
Represented by Jr.Intelligence Officer,
Narcotics Control Bureau,
Chennai Zonal Unit,
Chennai - 77.
NCB F.No.48/1/08/2025-NCB/MDU.
... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Section 438 BNSS, to set aside
the order dated 26.05.2026 passed by the Honourable Additional District
and Sessions Judge / Presiding Officer Special Officer for EC and NDPS
Act Cases at Pudukkottai in Crl.M.P.No. 1309 of 2026 in C.C.No. 258 of
2025 consequently grant default bail to the petitioner/accused.
For Petitioner : M/s.P.Kritika Kamal
For Respondent : Mr.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar,
Spl.Public Prosecutor for NCB
__________
Page  1  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:12:00 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1153 of 2026
ORDER
Heard and admitted.
02. With the consent of both parties, this criminal revision was
taken up for final hearing on 07.10.2026.
03. Challenging the order dated 26.05.2026 of the Additional
Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act
Cases, Pudukkottai, hereinafter referred to as ‘the special court’,
dismissing the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the revision
petitioner/petitioner/A1 under S.187(3) BNSS in Crl MP
No.1309/2026 (in CC No.258/2025) seeking statutory bail, the revision
petitioner/petitioner/A1 has filed this Criminal Revision Petition under
S.438 BNSS.
04. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking in this
criminal revision, 'the revision petitioner' and 'the revision respondent',
unless the context otherwise requires.
05. Prefatory facts are that on the basis of a complaint that the
revision petitioner conspired with one Raju, A2, using mobile phone
(8838266986) and that on 13.04.2025, the revision petitioner was
found in possession of contraband, Methamphetamine, weighing 950
gms, which was dropped by A2 on the thistles and meadows found
near Bharathi Nagar, Melavilakudi, Pudukkottai to Madurai Road, at
about 8.30pm on 13.04.2025, a case has been registered against the
__________
Page  2  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:12:00 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1153 of 2026
revision petitioner/A1 and A2 in NCB F No.48/1/08/2025-NCB/MDU
for the offences under S.22(c), S.27A, S.28 and S.29 NDPS Act, 1985,
r/w S.8(c) NDPS Act as amended, that accordingly, the revision
petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on
14.04.2025, that the revision respondent filed a police report before the
special court on 03.10.2025 and consequently, a case in CC
No.258/2025 on the file of the special court is pending, that the
revision petitioner, seeking statutory bail, had filed a criminal
miscellaneous petition under S.187(3) BNSS in Crl MP No.1309/2026
on the ground of ‘incomplete police report’ and that the special court,
after enquiry, has dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition in Crl
MP No.1309/2026.
06. Challenging such order of dismissal, the revision petitioner
has filed this criminal revision.
07. Heard both sides, and perused all the materials available.
08. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit
(1) that the case of the revision respondent that the revision
petitioner conspired with one Raju, A2, using mobile phone
(8838266986) and that on 13.04.2025, the revision petitioner was
found in possession of contraband, Methamphetamine, weighing 950
gms, which was dropped by A2 on the thistles and meadows found
near Bharathi Nagar, Melavilakudi, Pudukkottai to Madurai Road, at
about 8.30pm on 13.04.2025 is false and a concocted story,
(2) that the revision petitioner, when he was travelling with his
relatives, was intercepted by the police on 13.04.2025 at about 4.00pm
__________
Page  3  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:12:00 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1153 of 2026
at Palaya Gandarvakkottai Toll Plaza and he was taken by the police,
(3) that therefore, this is a false case foisted against the revision
petitioner as if he was found with contraband,
(4) that the wife of the revision petitioner filed a writ petition
before this court in WP (MD) No.11133/2025 for issuance of a writ of
mandumas, directing NHAI to preserve the CCTV footage recorded at
Palaya Gandharavakottai Toll Plaza between 4.00 P.M and 6.00 P.M
on 13.04.2025 and to grant a copy thereof to her,
(5) that this court, vide its order dated 17.04.2025 in WP (MD)
No.11133/2025, directed NHAI to preserve such CCTV footage and to
grant a copy thereof to the wife of the revision petitioner, as prayed
for,
(6) that in view of non compliance of such direction, the wife of
the revision petitioner filed a contempt petition before this court in
CONT P (MD) No.1950/2025 where it was informed that such CCTV
footage was already forwarded to NCB and that NCB submitted such
footage to the special court,
(7) that, accordingly, this court, in CONT P (MD)
No.1950/2025, directed the special court to forward such CCTV
footage to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, which, in
turn, was directed to retrieve the content and to submit the same to the
special court directly within 12 weeks,
(8) that Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, having
received such CCTV NVR under due acknowledgement, required the
special court to provide two hard disks for such retrieval of the data,
(9) that no such hard disks were found to have been provided as
required and the process of retrieval remained at a standstill,
(10) that the report from the Nodal Officer with respect to the
__________
Page  4  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:12:00 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1153 of 2026
CDR and CAF of the mobile phone (8838266986) alleged to have been
used for conspiracy is also still awaited,
(11) that therefore, without such necessary materials, namely, the
CCTV footage concerned and CDR/CAF details of the mobile phone
concerned, the police report has been filed and the police report filed in
this case is, therefore, an ‘incomplete police report’, and
(12) that therefore, the revision petitioner is entitled for statutory
bail and the impugned order of the special court warrants interference.

09. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for NCB would submit
that the complaint filed by the revision respondent would
comprehensively cover all such necessities as mandated in S.173(2)
CrPC, that mere non receipt of CFLS report for CCTV NVR recovered
from the Toll Plaza concerned and the CDR particulars would not
make the investigation or the complaint incomplete, that considering
the prima facie materials on record, the special court has taken
cognizance of the case, that a police report is not required to contain
every details of the evidence supporting it, that the purpose of the
report is only to furnish the special court with sufficient materials in
order to take cognizance but the evidence would be produced during
trial, that the revision petitioner having failed in his successive
attempts to secure regular bail has come forward with the prayer of
statutory bail, that the petitioner is a habitual offender and a history
sheeter having many criminal antecedents, that therefore, the order of
the special court does not suffer any sort of infirmities or illegalities
warranting the interference of this court and that therefore, this
criminal revision filed by the revision petitioner deserves for dismissal.
__________
Page  5  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:12:00 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1153 of 2026
10. Point for determination is whether the police report filed in
CC No.258/2025 on the file of the special court is an ‘incomplete
police report’ entitling the revision petitioner to get statutory bail under
S.187(3) BNSS ?

11. Precisely speaking, whether a police report filed in time but
without all the materials is a complete police report, disentitling the
accused to seek statutory bail is a debatable legal question.
12. Issue involved in this criminal revision, in the opinion of this
court, would require a discussion under two heads, one, completeness
of a police report in terms of statutory bail, and the other, investigation
at the instance of the accused.
13. Completeness of Police Report in terms of Statutory Bail
(1) 13.04.2025 is the date of arrest of the revision petitioner.
14.04.2025 is the date of judicial remand of the revision petitioner.
10.10.2025 is the date when the window period expires. 03.10.2025 is
the date when police report was filed. 11.12.2025 is the date when
revision petitioner filed a memo challenging the police report.
12.05.2026 is the date when the revision petitioner filed the criminal
miscellaneous petition under S.187(3) BNSS in Crl MP No.1309/2026
in CC No.258/2025.
(2) S.189 BNSS would read as under:
189. Release of accused when evidence deficient.
If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the
officer in charge of the police station that there is not sufficient
__________
Page  6  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:12:00 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1153 of 2026
evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the
forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, if
such person is in custody, release him on his executing a bond or
bail bond, as such officer may direct, to appear, if and when so
required, before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of
the offence on a police report, and to try the accused or commit
him for trial.
(3) S.190 BNSS would read as under:
190. Cases to be sent to Magistrate, when evidence is
sufficient.
(1) If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the
officer in charge of the police station that there is sufficient
evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid, such officer shall
forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to
take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the
accused or commit him for trial, or, if the offence is bailable and
the accused is able to give security, shall take security from him
for his appearance before such Magistrate on a day fixed and for
his attendance from day to day before such Magistrate until
otherwise directed:
Provided that if the accused is not in custody, the police
officer shall take security from such person for his appearance
before the Magistrate and the Magistrate to whom such report is
forwarded shall not refuse to accept the same on the ground that
the accused is not taken in custody.
(2) When the officer in charge of a police station forwards an
accused person to a Magistrate or takes security for his
__________
Page  7  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:12:00 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1153 of 2026
appearance before such Magistrate under this section, he shall
send to such Magistrate any weapon or other article which it may
be necessary to produce before him, and shall require the
complainant (if any) and so many of the persons who appear to
such officer to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of
the case as he may think necessary, to execute a bond to appear
before the Magistrate as thereby directed and prosecute or give
evidence (as the case may be) in the matter of the charge against
the accused.
(3) If the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is mentioned in
the bond, such Court shall be held to include any Court to which
such Magistrate may refer the case for inquiry or trial, provided
reasonable notice of such reference is given to such complainant
or persons.
(4) The officer in whose presence the bond is executed shall
deliver a copy thereof to one of the persons who executed it, and
shall then send to the Magistrate the original with his report.
(4) S.193 BNSS would read as under:
193. Report of police officer on completion of
investigation.
(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be
completed without unnecessary delay.
(2) The investigation in relation to an offence under sections 64,
65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or
under sections 4, 6, 8 or section 10 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 shall be completed within two
months from the date on which the information was recorded by
__________
Page  8  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:12:00 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1153 of 2026
the officer in charge of the police station.
(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;
(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;
(i) the sequence of custody in case of electronic device;
(ii) the police officer shall, within a period of ninety days, inform
the progress of the investigation by any means including through
electronic communication to the informant or the victim;
(iii) the officer shall also communicate, in such manner as the
State Government may, by rules, provide, the action taken by
him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to
__________
Page  9  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:12:00 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1153 of 2026
the commission of the offence was first given.
(4) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under
section 177, the report shall, in any case in which the State
Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted
through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the
Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to
make further investigation.
(5) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this
section that the accused has been released on his bond or bail
bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of
such bond or bail bond or otherwise as he thinks fit.
(6) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 190
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 180 of all the
persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its
witnesses.
(7) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such
statement is not relevant to the subject matter of the proceedings
or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the
interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he
shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note
requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to
be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such
request.
__________
Page  10  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:12:00 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1153 of 2026
(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.
(9) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further
investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-
section (3) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where
upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police
station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall
forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding
such evidence in the form as the State Government may, by
rules, provide; and the provisions of sub-sections (3) to (8) shall,
as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as
they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section
(3):
Provided that further investigation during the trial may be
conducted with the permission of the Court trying the case and
the same shall be completed within a period of ninety days
which may be extended with the permission of the Court.

(5) It is therefore clear that S.193(3)(i)(d) BNSS, namely,
‘whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by
whom’ would qualify a police report whether a positive police report
or a negative police report. If, in the opinion of the investigating police
officer, no offence appears to have been committed, it would be a
__________
Page  11  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:12:00 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1153 of 2026
‘negative police report’ with the scope for further investigation at the
instance of the superior police officer or of the Magistrate. If, in the
opinion of the investigating police officer, any offence appears to have
been committed, it would be a ‘positive police report’ to which, as
under S.193(6) BNSS, S.190 applies, requiring the investigating police
officer to forward to the Magistrate along with such positive police
report
(i) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the
prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the
Magistrate during investigation;
(ii) the statements recorded under S.180 BNSS of all the persons
whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.

(6) In short, if it is a ‘positive police report’ to which, as under
S.193(6) BNSS, S.190 applies, the investigating police officer shall
forward such police report to the Magistrate along with all the
materials which he relies on.
(7) Now, the question is whether such materials relied on by the
investigating police officer in such positive police report must qualify
as ‘complete evidence’ qualifying the police report as a ‘complete
police report’?
(8) S.190 BNSS would answer that if it appears to the
investigating police officer that there is sufficient evidence or
reasonable ground of suspicion, it would be enough for such
investigating police officer to forward such police report with such
materials to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence
on such police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial . In
__________
Page  12  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:12:00 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1153 of 2026
other words, while forwarding a positive police report, the materials
forwarded along with such positive police report need not be ‘complete
evidence’ arising out of ‘complete investigation’ but need to be the
materials bringing sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of
suspicion .
(9) Therefore, if a positive police report with such materials
bringing sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion is
forwarded by the investigating police officer, enabling the Magistrate
to take cognizance thereon, it could be held or said to be a strict
compliance of S.193(3) r/w S.193(6) r/w S.190 BNSS (S.173(2) r/w
173(5) r/w S.170 CrPC)
(10) Therefore, such police report with such materials as
aforesaid culminating from a core investigation, and enabling the
Magistrate to take cognizance thereon, in the opinion of this court, can
be said to be a complete police report which cannot be challenged by
the accused on the ground that the investigating police officer ought to
have collected some other materials being better than those already
collected.
(11) Therefore, strictly speaking, here is a case where a positive
police report with such materials, which, in the opinion of the
investigating police officer, would bring sufficient evidence or
reasonable ground of suspicion against the accused concerned, has
been filed, enabling the Magistrate to take cognizance thereon.
(12) At this juncture, this court, even though the issue of
‘incomplete final report in terms of statutory bail’ is found to have
__________
Page  13  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:12:00 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1153 of 2026
been referred to the larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
(Directorate of Enforcement V Manpreet Singh Talwar SLP (Crl)
5724/2023 (2023 SCC OnLine SC 751) and Hanif Ansari V State
(Govt of NCT of Delhi) (2024 SCC Online SC 537)), would like to
refer to the recent decision dated 01.07.2026 of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Shaurya Sunil Singh V Central Bureau of Investigation
(2026 INSC 666) and the relevant excerpts would read as under:
‘ 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:
a) The right to default bail is an indefeasible right that
6
flows from Article 21 of the Constitution. [Saravanan v. State ;
7
Fakhrey Alam v. State of Uttar 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
8
days, as prescribed. [State v. T. Gangi Reddy ];
c) The right to default bail comes to an end upon filing
of the chargesheet within the prescribed time period. [Suresh
9
Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra and Anr ] +
10
[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.
11
[Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam ; Bikramjit Singh v.
12
State of Punjab ]
__________
Page  14  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:12:00 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1153 of 2026
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 once the charge-
sheet is filed in its proper form, the question of default bail
does not arise. This Court in Judgebir Singh v. NIA (((2023) 17
SCC 48)) 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)
__________
Page  15  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:12:00 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1153 of 2026
22 . More recently, we place reliance on the exposition of
13
this Court in CBI v. 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
__________
Page  16  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:12:00 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1153 of 2026
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 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 Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v.
R.S. Pai (((2002) 5 SCC 82)). 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:
__________
Page  17  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:12:00 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1153 of 2026
“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 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
__________
Page  18  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:12:00 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1153 of 2026
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)
25 . Similarly, this Court in Narendra Kumar Amin v. CBI and
14
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
__________
Page  19  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:12:00 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1153 of 2026
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)
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. ( emphasis supplied by this court)
(13) In such circumstances, the revision petitioner, in the opinion
of this court, cannot challenge the police report filed by the
investigating police officer in CC No.258/2025 on the file of the
special court on the ground that the investigating police officer ought
to have collected some other materials, namely, CFLS report for
__________
Page  20  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:12:00 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1153 of 2026
CCTV NVR recovered from the Toll Plaza concerned and CDR and
CAF particulars of the mobile phone concerned, being better than
those already collected.
(14) Literally speaking, as long as S.193 BNSS provides for
further investigation and thereby, for further report or reports with
further materials/evidence, every police report, however complete,
cannot be said to be a ‘complete police report with 100%
completeness’.
13. Investigation at the instance of the accused
(1) S.2 (l) BNSS would define ‘investigation’ as under:
(l) "investigation" includes all the proceedings under this Sanhita
for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by
any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a
Magistrate in this behalf.
In simple, only a police officer or a person authorized by a Magistrate
can collect evidence during investigation.
(2) Union of India and another V W.N. Chadha (AIR 1993
SC 1082) is a case where the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
explaining the role of the accused in an investigation, has held as
under:
‘ 91 . More so, the accused has no right to have any say as regards
the manner and method of investigation. Save under certain
exceptions under the entire scheme of the Code, the accused has
no participation as a matter of right during the course of the
investigation of a case instituted on a police report till the
__________
Page  21  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:12:00 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1153 of 2026
investigation culminates in filing of a final report under Section
173(2) of the Code or in a proceeding instituted otherwise than
on a police report till the process is issued under Section 204 of
the Code, as the case may be. Even in cases where cognizance of
an offence is taken on a complaint notwithstanding that the said
offence is triable by a Magistrate or triable exclusively by the
Court of Sessions, the accused has no right to have participation
till the process is issued. In case the issue of process is postponed
as contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, the accused may
attend the subsequent inquiry but cannot participate. There are
various judicial pronouncements to this effect but we feel that it
is not necessary to recapitulate those decisions. At the same
time, we would like to point out that there are certain provisions
under the Code empowering the Magistrate to give an
opportunity of being heard under certain specified
circumstances.
(3) In this case on hand, the revision petitioner/A1, claiming that
CCTV footage concerned and CDR/CAF details of the mobile phone
concerned are necessary materials which would disprove the case of
the prosecution, would require the investigating police officer to
collect such materials and to file the same along with a police report in
order to make the police report ‘complete’.
(4) As discussed earlier, the revision petitioner being the accused
can have no say as regards the manner and method of investigation.
Therefore, the revision petitioner cannot plead that without such
necessary materials, namely, the CCTV footage concerned and
__________
Page  22  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:12:00 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1153 of 2026
CDR/CAF details of the mobile phone concerned, the police report
filed in this case is an ‘incomplete police report’, entitling him to get
statutory bail.
14. In the light of the foregoing discussions, this court holds that
the police report filed in CC No.258/2025 on the file of the special
court cannot be said to be an ‘incomplete police report’ entitling the
revision petitioner to get statutory bail under S.187(3) BNSS, and this
point is answered, accordingly.
15. In fine, this criminal revision shall stand dismissed,
upholding the order of the special court in Crl MP No.1309/2026 in
CC No.258/2025, directing the special court to dispose of
C.C.No.258/2025, within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order and closing the connected miscellaneous
petitions, consequently.
05.11.2026
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
gns
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge / Presiding Officer Special
Officer for EC and NDPS Act Cases at Pudukkottai
2.Jr.Intelligence Officer,
Narcotics Control Bureau,
Chennai Zonal Unit,
Chennai - 77.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
__________
Page  23  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:12:00 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1153 of 2026
B.MURUGESAN, J.
gns
Order made in
CRL.RC.(MD)No.1153 of 2026
05.11.2026
__________
Page  24  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:12:00 am )