Can Absconding Accused Claim Default Bail If Police Doesn't File Supplementary Chargesheet After His Arrest? MP High Court Answers

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that where a chargesheet has already been filed against an accused while he was absconding, there is no requirement for filing a supplementary chargesheet after his arrest. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 252]The bench of Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal while denying default bail to the accused held, "merely because the Investigating Agency sought time to conduct further investigation or did not file a supplementary charge-sheet after the arrest of the petitioner, it cannot be inferred that the investigation remained incomplete making accused entitled for default bail. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that where a charge-sheet has already been filed against an accused during his abscondence, it is not mandatory for the Investigating Agency to further file a supplementary charge-sheet after his subsequent arrest". A criminal revision was filed by the accused challenging the Trial Court order dismissing his plea for default bail under Section 187(3) of BNSS. The counsel for the petitioner argued that since he was absconding, the police had submitted a chargesheet against other co-accused on July 5, 2017, and thereafter a judgment was passed on March 5, 2022, convicting the co-accused for attempt to murder (Section 307 of IPC). The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was arrested after the conviction judgment was passed, and he was produced before the Court, which, upon the State's demand, remanded him. The counsel claimed that the State prayed to file a supplementary chargesheet, but no action was taken. The JMFC, while rejecting the petitioner's bail application, also failed to consider his objection regarding the non-filing of the supplementary charge sheet. The counsel for the petitioner argued that since the State failed to file a supplementary chargesheet after multiple opportunities, the petitioner was entitled to default bail. He further submitted that the document filed by the State on July 5, 2017, cannot be treated as a supplementary chargesheet in the eyes of law as it was merely a letter and not a final report as contemplated under Section 173 CrPC, which governs the mandatory filing of a police report to the magistrate upon completion of investigation. The counsel for the State argued that the bail was rejected based on the challan filed on July 5, 2017, and because the petitioner was absconding, he was only required t be arrested without any requirement for a supplementary chargesheet. The court noted that the first chargesheet was filed on December 22, 2012, in which 3 out of the 6 accused men were shown as 'arrested' while three remained absconding. Thereafter, the investigation against the absconding accused continued under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. Later, one of the absconding accused men was arrested, and a supplementary chargesheet was filed on March 9, 2015. Subsequently, another charge sheet was filed on July 1, 2017, wherein the second absconding accused was arrested. Regarding the present revisionist, the court noted that his arrest was yet to be effected for offences including rioting (Section 147), rioting with a deadly weapon (Section 148), and unlawful assembly (Section 149) and attempt to murder (Section 307) of the IPC. The court noted that the agency took "every possible effort" to trace the accused, who had been absconding since the incident. The court noted that the investigation was completed and only the arrest of the accused/revisionist remained. Further, the bench observed that a supplementary challan of July 1, 2017, was validly filed against the revisionist. The bench noted that another supplementary chargesheet was filed against the petitioner on July 5, 2017, invoking Section 299 CrPC, which empowers a court to record prosecution evidence in the absence of the accused. The court noted,"It is true that, in the operative portion of the order dated 05.07.2017, the Trial Court specifically referred only to the name of co-accused Vinay. However, in my considered opinion the mere omission to mention the name of accused Bablu in the said order does not lead to the conclusion that no supplementary charge-sheet was filed against him".Regarding the revisionist's right for default bail, the court, relying on Supreme Court decisions, reiterated that the act of seeking time to file a supplementary chargesheet after arrest of the accused is merely part of further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. The bench further clarified that further investigation can continue even after the filing of a chargesheet under Section 173(2) CrPC. Therefore, the court noted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application does not suffer from any illegality and dismissed the revision. Case Title: Bablu @ Arvind Dubey v State of Madhya Pradesh, CRR No.1443-2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 252For Revisionist: Advocates Sankalp Kochar and Siddhant KocharFor State: Advocate Ritesh SharmaClick here to read/download the Order

Can Absconding Accused Claim Default Bail If Police Doesn't File Supplementary Chargesheet After His Arrest? MP High Court Answers

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

Can Absconding Accused Claim Default Bail If Police Doesn't File Supplementary Chargesheet After His Arrest? MP High Court Answers

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers