Non-filing of additional copies of chargesheet under Section 193(8) BNSS does not entitle accused to default bail.

The appellant was arrested on July 13, 2025, for alleged involvement in a cyber-fraud conspiracy involving mule accounts and forged KYC documents.

The CBI filed a chargesheet on September 2, 2025, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Information Technology Act, within the sixty-day statutory period.

The appellant moved for default bail on September 17, 2025, arguing that the investigating agency failed to file and supply additional copies of the chargesheet and documents as required under Section 193(8) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The Special Judge and the Bombay High Court concurrently dismissed the application, leading to this appeal.

1. Whether the filing of a chargesheet without the additional copies mandated by Section 193(8) of the BNSS entitles an accused to default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS.

The Court applied Section 187(3) of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 167(2) CrPC), which provides for default bail if a chargesheet is not filed within the prescribed sixty or ninety-day period.

The Court interpreted Section 193(8) of the BNSS (new provision) regarding the submission of additional copies for the accused.

The Court relied on Judgebir Singh v. NIA and CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan to establish that the right to default bail is extinguished once a chargesheet in the form prescribed is filed.

The Court applied the principle from CBI v. R.S. Pai and Narendra Kumar Amin v. CBI that procedural requirements for supporting documents are directory rather than mandatory.

The Court observed that Section 187(3) of the BNSS is substantially identical to Section 167(2) of the CrPC, intended to prevent laxity in investigation.

The Court reasoned that the right to default bail is a conditional right that ceases once the police report is filed in its proper form under Section 193(3).

While Section 193(8) of the BNSS introduced a requirement for the police to file additional copies for the accused, the Court held that non-compliance with this specific administrative requirement does not vitiate the chargesheet itself.

Drawing a parallel to the "directory" nature of Section 173(5) CrPC (now Section 193(6) BNSS), the Court concluded that procedural omissions—such as failing to provide extra copies or missing documents—cannot be interpreted to revive an indefeasible right to bail once the core investigation is complete and the report is before the Magistrate.

The Court ruled that as the chargesheet was filed within the statutory period on September 2, 2025, and complied with the form required under Section 193(3) of the BNSS, the right to default bail was extinguished. The non-filing of extra copies under Section 193(8) is a procedural irregularity and not a ground for default bail.

The Court clarified that the appellant’s separate application for regular bail must be considered on its own merits.