The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 1) held that the non-supply of a charge sheet copy to an accused cannot be a ground for a default bail under Section 187(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh upheld the Bombay High Court's decision, which had rejected the accused's plea for a default bail on the ground of non-supply of a charge sheet copy to him.

The Appellant-accused was arrested in connection with a case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”) for an alleged large-scale cyber fraud case involving approximately Rs 3.81 crores, involving offences punishable under Sections 61(2) read with 318, 336 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 66 and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The accused moved the High Court, seeking a default bail on the ground that although the charge sheet was filed within the prescribed timeline, he was not served with a copy of the charge sheet, and claimed to be a ground for the grant of a default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS.

Rejecting the accused's contention, the High Court, interpreting Section 187(3) of BNSS, stated that the provision is provided for default bail when the charge sheet is not filed within the prescribed period. “Not providing a copy of the charge sheet cannot be a ground for granting default bail.”, the High Court added.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the accused moved to the Supreme Court.

Dismissing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Kotiswar Singh refused to interfere with the impugned finding, holding it to be justifiable.

“In our view, the courts below have rightly held that a non-filing of a copy of the charge sheet cannot become a ground for default bail, and a submission of the appellant cannot be accepted.”, the Court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

(Story to be updated upon uploading of judgment)

Cause Title: SHAURYA SUNIL KUMAR SINGH Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Ritesh Kalra, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kalangiwale, Adv. Mr. Anish Khandekar, Adv. Ms. Uroosa Shaikh, Adv. Ms. Vidhi Pankaj Thaker, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Satya Darshi Sanjay, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Zoheb Hossian, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Mr. Aman Jha, Adv. Ms. Nikita Sethi, Adv.