The Delhi High Court has ruled that a chargesheet filed under the Arms Act, 1959, without prior sanction for prosecution, is not considered incomplete and does not entitle the accused to default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Justice Tejas Karia, while deciding the bail plea in Suraj Kanojia v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi, clarified that non-obtaining of sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act, though mandatory for prosecution under Sections 25/27, does not render the chargesheet incomplete. The Court emphasized:
“A chargesheet filed by the investigating agency without sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act does not amount to an incomplete chargesheet and cannot trigger the right to default bail under Section 187(3) of BNSS.”
The case involved allegations that the applicant, Suraj Kanojia, fired gunshots at the complainant’s residence along with three co-accused. CCTV footage and recovered cartridges corroborated the allegations. The police initially filed a chargesheet noting that the applicant was absconding and later filed a supplementary chargesheet after his arrest.
The applicant’s counsel argued that the absence of sanction under Section 39 Arms Act rendered the chargesheet incomplete, thus invoking his right to default bail. He cited Supreme Court rulings including Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, asserting that piecemeal investigations are not permitted under Section 193(3) BNSS.
Read Also:- Allahabad High Court Criticizes Live-In Relationships While Granting Bail in POCSO Case
However, the High Court rejected these arguments and relied on precedents such as Judgebir Singh v. NIA (2023) and Suresh Kumar Jain v. State of Maharashtra, holding that:
“Sanction is a procedural requirement for taking cognizance, not for concluding investigation. A chargesheet without sanction does not imply the investigation is incomplete.”
The Court observed that the chargesheet was filed within the prescribed 90-day period under Section 187(3) BNSS, and hence, the applicant had no right to claim default bail.
Read Also:- Supreme Court to Decide If Crusher Units can Operate in Eco-Sensitive Zones?
Further, considering the seriousness of the offence, the CCTV evidence, and the applicant’s role as the alleged shooter, the Court dismissed his plea for regular bail under Section 483 BNSS. The bench noted:
“The accusations are grave and supported by forensic evidence and eyewitnesses. The applicant poses a flight risk and a threat to key prosecution witnesses.”
The bail application was accordingly dismissed.
Case title: Suraj Kanojia v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
Case no.: BAIL APPLN. 1713/2025
