Chargesheet Not Incomplete Merely Because It Was Filed Without Sanction; Accused Can't Seek Default Bail On That Ground : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today pronounced a judgement holding that an accused person would not be entitled to default bail on the ground that the chargesheet filed against them is without a sanction of valid authority and hence is an incomplete chargesheet. The judgement was pronounced by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala. The bench held that whether the sanction of a valid authority for chargesheet was required was not a question to be addressed while taking cognisance of an offence, rather, it was a question to be addressed during prosecution and such prosecution started after the cognisance of an offence was taken.

For context, Section 167 of CrPC provides for "default bail" and permits the release of an accused person on bail if the investigation against them is not completed within requisite time. The rationale behind Section 167 is to ensure that the investigation is completed within the period prescribed. As per the provision, investigation should be completed within first 24 hours. In terms of Section 167(1), if the investigation cannot be completed within the period of 24 hours is to be transmitted to Magistrate who is supposed to consider whether the accused be remanded to custody or not.

In the present case, it was argued that even though the chargesheet was filed within the statutory prescribed period of 180 days, it was filed without a sanction of valid authority. Thus, the chargesheet was incomplete and was as good as not being filed within the requisite time. Rejecting this argument, the bench held–

"We find no merit in the argument that chargesheet filed without sanction is an incomplete chargesheet. Chargesheet was filed well within the time. Whether the sanction is required or not is a question to be taken during taking cognisance of an offence. Prosecution starts when cognisance of offence is taken."

Through the judgement, the court addressed four questions–

1. Whether accused is entitled to seek default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC on the ground that although the chargesheet may be filed within the statutory time period but it does not have valid sanction of authority and if it is as good as saying that there is no chargesheet filed within sanctioned time period?

2. Whether cognisance of chargesheet is necessary to prevent the accused from seeking default bail or whether mere filing of chargesheet will suffice for the investigation to be deemed complete?

3. A session court may not be in the position to take cognisance on account of failure on part of prosecution failing to obtain sanction to prosecute the accused under the UAPA. Does such failure amount to non compliance of provisions of Section 167(2) of CrPC?

4. Whether filing of chargesheet for offences in the court of magistrate and magistrate committing the case to the Sessions Court would render all to nullity since the NIA empowers the special court to take note of chargesheet? Does the error in magistrate court and not the special court entitle accused to default bail?

The court held that that a chargesheet filed without a valid sanction could not be considered an incomplete chargesheet if it was filed well within the time. This was because a valid sanction was a part of prosecution which started after cognisance of offence was taken.

The bench also took note of the recent judgment in Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India And Ors which held that an incomplete chargesheet filed by the investigating agency will not deprive the right of the accused to default bail. The bench held that the judgment in Ritu Chhabaria has no bearing in the present case as there, the investigating officer had admitted that the chargesheet was filed without completing the investigation.

Another report based on the judgment - Don't Seek Extension Of Time For Investigation At Last Moment, Accused Will Get Right To Default Bail : Supreme Court To NIA, Police

Case : Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh @ Jasbir and others vs National Investigation Agency and others | Crl.A. No. 1011/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment