S.187(3) BNSS | Chargesheet Filed Without Obtaining Sanction To Prosecute Under Arms Act Not Incomplete, No Default Bail: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an accused under the Arms Act, 1959 cannot seek default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 merely on the ground that the chargesheet filed against him in terms of Section 193(3) BNSS, lacks the sanction to prosecute.Sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act is mandatory to prosecute a person for offences under Sections 25/ 27.Justice Tejas Karia conceded that if an incomplete chargesheet is filed by the prosecution, it gives rise to the right of default bail, even if the same is filed within the prescribed period.However, the bench added,“chargesheet filed by the investigating agency for offences under the Arms Act 1959, without obtaining sanction under Section 39, does not render the chargesheet incomplete and accused cannot for the purposes of seeking under Section 193(3) of the BNSS.”In holding so, it relied on Nitin Nagpal v. State (2006) where the High Court had held that the non-obtaining of sanction under the Arms Act, 1959 may have a legal effect qua the prosecution but would not entail that the challan was incomplete or that investigation was not over.In the case at hand, the Applicant was booked for firing a bullet at the complainant. Few empty cartridges and one live cartridge were seized from the site of incident and the complainant had identified the Applicant through a government installed CCTV camera.Accordingly, a chargesheet and subsequently, a Supplementary Chargesheet were filed.Applicant contended that the prosecution filed an incomplete chargesheet, without the sanction order under Section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959.It was contended that the same was done within the period prescribed for filing the chargesheet, in order to defeat his right to default/statutory bail under Section 187(3) of BNSS.Applicant contended that cognizance of an offence cannot be taken on the basis of an incomplete chargesheet. It was argued that Section 193 of the BNSS does not contemplate a piecemeal investigation and filing of an incomplete chargesheet before the Court. It was further submitted that till the investigation is completed, any report sent by the IO shall not be a Police Report within the meaning of Section 193(3) of BNSS.The Prosecution on the other hand submitted that the chargesheet against the Applicant was filed within the prescribed period of 90 days and mere pendency of a procedural formality of sanction under the Arms Act does not entitle the accused to default bail.It was further submitted that the law is settled that cognizance is taken of the offence and not merely of an individual accused; the sanction under Arms Act does not affect the cognizance of the offence under BNSS, which is independent and cognizable.The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Judgebir Singh v. NIA (2023) where it was held that a chargesheet filed without sanction cannot be treated as an incomplete chargesheet and does not entitle an accused to a default bail as contemplated under Section 167(2) of the CrPC [now Section 187(3) of the BNSS].Consequently, it held that the case of the Applicant for default bail is without any merit and dismissed the petition.Appearance: For the Applicant : Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Harsh Gautam and Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for the State with SI Rahul Rathi PS: Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.Case title:Suraj Kanojia v. State Govt of NCT of DelhiCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 710Case no.: BAIL APPLN. 1713/2025Click here to read judgment

S.187(3) BNSS | Chargesheet Filed Without Obtaining Sanction To Prosecute Under Arms Act Not Incomplete, No Default Bail: Delhi High Court

Kapil Dhyani

Tags