The Supreme Court has ruled that an accused cannot claim default bail merely because copies of the chargesheet or related documents were not supplied in the manner contemplated under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), if the chargesheet itself was filed within the statutory period. Dismissing an appeal filed by Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh, the Court clarified that the right to default bail comes to an end once a valid police report is filed before the competent court within the prescribed time.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a CBI investigation into an alleged cyber fraud network involving the use of "mule" bank accounts to receive and transfer proceeds obtained through digital arrest scams, phishing attacks and other online frauds. According to the prosecution, the appellant, Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh, allegedly provided logistical support to the principal accused by transporting cheque books, ATM cards and SIM cards, facilitating payments and assisting the alleged conspiracy.
The appellant was taken into custody on 13 July 2025. The CBI filed its chargesheet against him and two other accused on 2 September 2025, within the statutory period. However, Singh later sought default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS, arguing that copies of the chargesheet and accompanying documents had not been supplied within the prescribed time, thereby entitling him to statutory bail. Both the Special Court and the Bombay High Court rejected his plea.
Court's Observations
The Supreme Court examined whether failure to file additional copies of the chargesheet, as required under Section 193(8) of the BNSS, could give rise to a right of default bail.
The Bench compared the provisions of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure with the BNSS and found that the law governing default bail remains substantially unchanged. While the BNSS introduces a requirement to provide additional copies of the police report for supply to the accused and prescribes a fourteen-day timeline for furnishing those documents, the Court held that these procedural requirements do not affect the validity of a chargesheet filed within the statutory period.
Summarising the legal position, the Bench observed that
"simple non-filing of additional copies of the chargesheet/police report will not entitle the appellant to the relief of default bail."
Relying on earlier decisions, including Judgebir Singh v. NIA, CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan and CBI v. R.S. Pai, the Court reiterated that the right to default bail exists only until a chargesheet complying with the statutory requirements is filed before the Magistrate within the prescribed sixty or ninety days. Non-compliance with procedural requirements relating to supply of documents does not invalidate the chargesheet itself.
Supreme Court's Decision
The Court held that the chargesheet in the present case had been filed on 2 September 2025 within the statutory period and complied with Section 193(3) of the BNSS. As a result, the appellant's right to seek default bail stood extinguished on that date.
Affirming the Bombay High Court's judgment, the Bench held that non-filing or delayed supply of copies of the chargesheet could not be treated as a ground for default bail. It also clarified that the appellant's application for regular bail must be considered independently on its own merits, without being influenced by the findings in the present appeal.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed
Case Details:
Case Title: Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Case Number: Criminal Appeal of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4333 of 2026)
Judge: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Decision Date: July 1, 2026
-300x169.webp)
 Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act)-300x169.webp)
