S.193(2) BNSS | 60-Day Timeline For Chargesheet In Rape, POCSO Offences Not Shortcut To Default Bail For Accused: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that an accused cannot seek reprieve of default bail by citing the 60-day investigation timeline mandated under Section 193(2) BNSS (applicable for offences like POCSO and Rape). Terming the provision as 'victim-centric', not intended 'to furnish an escape route' for the accused, the Court underscored that Section187(3) BNSS [90-day timeline for investigation...
The Karnataka High Court has held that an accused cannot seek reprieve of default bail by citing the 60-day investigation timeline mandated under Section 193(2) BNSS (applicable for offences like POCSO and Rape).
Terming the provision as 'victim-centric', not intended 'to furnish an escape route' for the accused, the Court underscored that Section187(3) BNSS [90-day timeline for investigation in offences punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more] remains the 'sole fountainhead' from which a right to default bail accrues.
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, after analysing Section 193(2) and Section 187(3) of BNSS, noted as below:
“…Section 193(2) of the BNSS which mandates filing of charge sheet within 60 days for certain offences cannot mean that it can be made use of by the accused seeking statutory/default bail. It is for the purpose of completion of investigation in offences of rape and POCSO. It is at best for the benefit of the victim and cannot mean the accused can take benefit to seek enlargement on bail”, the Court emphasised.
The Court, hence, dismissed the writ petition filed by the accused, Govinda, charged with the rape and abetment to suicide of a 17 year old girl. The deceased minor, a housekeeping staff, was allegedly pregnant at the time of her suicide in October, 2025.
In December 2025, 60 days post his remand to judicial custody, the accused filed an application for default bail under Section 187(3) r/w Section 193(2) BNSS, which was rejected by the trial court citing the sole application of Section 187(3) BNSS in such matters. Then, on the 84th day of judicial custody, police filed the chargesheet without FSL or DNA reports, mobile data details or CDRs. The accused approached the trial court again for default bail on account of 'incomplete chargesheet', which was rejected once more. Consequently, the present writ petition came to be filed before the High Court.
The High Court opined that filing of an incomplete chargesheet, without FSL or DNA reports, within the 90-day investigation timeline for grave offences, does not make the accused automatically eligible for statutory bail under Section 187(3).
“…Mere filing of an incomplete charge sheet or the post-script in a charge sheet by reserving a right to file a supplementary charge sheet, cannot mean that the accused can be released on grant of statutory bail… Once a charge sheet is filed within the stipulated period, with all material barring the reports, the right to statutory bail stands extinguished. The criminal process is not a ritual of perfection at its inception; it is an evolving inquiry where additional evidence may surface in the fullness of time”, the single bench added.
The Court clarified that the investigating agency should not normally be required to file a complete chargesheet within the 90 days under Section 187(3) BNSS since it would impose an impossible burden on them in many cases. In the present case, the Court opined that the chargesheet was accompanied by statements of the prosecutrix and her father, birth certificate, medical reports, and other incriminating material, which imparts the chargesheet considerable value.
The High Court, before parting, asserted that Section 193(2) BNSS aims at ensuring swift justice for the victim and not default bail for the accused.
“…It [Section 193(2) BNSS] is a legislative exhortation to ensure alacrity in investigation, particularly in heinous offences - in relation to an offence under Sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70 and 71 of the BNS or Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act. Yet, it does not, in its text or spirit, confer upon the accused a right to default bail upon its breach. To construe it otherwise, would render Section 187 nugatory…”, the court observed by relying on its own division bench judgment in Hanumantha Mogaveera v. State of Karnataka (2021).
Adv. Abhishek A appeared for the petitioner. Addtnl. SPP B.N Jagadeesha represented the state.
Case Title: Govinda v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Writ Petition No.5248 of 2026 (GM-RES)