Kerala High Court holds that a chargesheet filed within the statutory period retains its validity despite later correction of formal defects, denying default bail

The applicant was the sole accused in Crime No. 20/2026 of the Chelannur Excise Range Office, Kozhikode, alleging possession of 11.78 grams of methamphetamine in violation of Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

He was arrested on 8 June 2026 and remained in judicial custody thereafter.

His earlier application for regular bail, B.A. No. 3851/2026, had been dismissed on merits, and no change in circumstances was shown.

In the present second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), he argued, inter alia, that the final report had not been validly filed within the statutory sixty-day period and that he was therefore entitled to default bail under Section 187(2) BNSS.

The report was initially filed on 21 July 2026, within sixty days, but was returned for curing a formal defect and was re-submitted on 17 August 2026.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS despite the earlier dismissal of his bail application and the absence of any change in circumstances?

Whether a final report filed within the statutory period but returned for curing formal defects, and re-submitted after expiry of the sixty-day period, preserves the applicant’s right to default bail under Section 187(2) BNSS?

Whether the defects in the final report were indicative of incomplete investigation, or were merely formal defects whose subsequent correction related back to the original date of filing?

The Court applied Section 483 BNSS governing regular bail and Section 187(2) BNSS governing statutory/default bail.

Since Section 22(b) NDPS Act prescribed a maximum punishment of ten years without a minimum term, the applicable period for completion of investigation was sixty days.

Default bail is an indefeasible right flowing from Article 21 when the investigation is not completed and the requisite final report is not filed within the prescribed period; however, the right depends on the pendency of investigation and ordinarily ceases once a valid final report complying with Section 193(3) BNSS is filed.

Relying on Judgebir Singh v. National Investigation Agency, (2023) 17 SCC 48, the Court held that the determinative consideration is completion of investigation, not merely the formal filing of a report.

Under Vimal K. Mohanan v. State of Kerala, 2023 (2) KLT 214, default bail may arise where an incomplete report is filed merely to circumvent the statutory period and the completed report is submitted beyond that period.

Conversely, where a report filed within time is returned only for curing formal defects, its corrected re-submission relates back to the original filing date.

The Court also relied on CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan, (2024) 3 SCC 734, Narendra Kumar Amin v. CBI, (2015) 3 SCC 417, and Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. CBI, 2026 KHC OnLine 6495, for the proposition that omissions or defects in accompanying documents do not invalidate a chargesheet where the investigation is otherwise complete and the report substantially complies with the statutory requirements.

On the merits, the Court found the accusation serious and prima facie indicative of the applicant’s complicity in a premeditated offence.

Since the earlier bail application had been dismissed on merits and no intervening change in circumstances was established, the applicant was not entitled to regular bail.

On default bail, the Court accepted that the sixty-day period applied and that the initial final report had been filed on 21 July 2026, within the statutory period calculated from the applicant’s arrest on 8 June 2026.

Although the report was returned and re-submitted after the expiry of the period, the defect concerned an inadvertently included, unrelated document and did not demonstrate that the investigation was incomplete.

The report complied with the requirements of Section 193(3) BNSS, and the defect was merely formal.

Consequently, the corrected report related back to the original date of filing, irrespective of whether the defect was cured within the period granted by the court.

The applicant therefore could not claim that the investigation remained incomplete or that the statutory right to default bail had accrued.

It held that the applicant was not entitled to regular bail because the earlier bail application had been dismissed on merits and no change in circumstances was shown.

It further held that the final report, having been filed within sixty days and returned only for curing formal defects, retained its original filing date upon re-submission; therefore, the applicant had no enforceable right to default bail under Section 187(2) BNSS.

The bail application was accordingly dismissed.