The Charge-Sheet Was Filed on Time. The Copies Were Not.

What happened

An FIR was registered under Section 61(2) read with Sections 318, 336 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in a cyber fraud of Rs 3.81 crore.

The charge-sheet was filed before the magistrate on 2 September 2025, within the prescribed statutory period. What was not done was the supply of the additional copies that Section 193(8) BNSS requires.

The appellant sought default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS, arguing that the non-filing and non-supply of the charge-sheet to him within the statutory period made him eligible. The Special Judge, CBI dismissed the application. His revision was dismissed by the High Court.

Two provisions, two different jobs

The appeal turned on whether a defect in one provision could be read across into another. The Court held it could not.

Section 187(3) is the default bail provision. The right it creates arises when the charge-sheet is not filed within sixty or ninety days as applicable. Once a charge-sheet is filed within that period, in compliance with the form prescribed under Section 193(3), the right ceases.

Section 193(8) requires additional copies. Its non-observance is a separate matter.

Non-filing of additional copies of the charge-sheet u/s.193(8) would not vitiate the charge-sheet/police report itself.

So non-compliance with Section 193(8) cannot be construed to produce the same result as Section 187(3). The courts below were right to hold that the non-filing of a copy cannot become a ground for default bail.

The BNSS did not change this

Because the BNSS is new, one live question in the criminal courts is which settled positions under the Code of Criminal Procedure survived it. On this point the answer is that nothing changed.

As was the case under the erstwhile CrPC, the position under the BNSS remains that the right to default bail arises when the charge-sheet is not filed within the applicable period, and ceases once it is.

Here the charge-sheet was filed within time and its contents complied with Section 193(3). That disposed of the appeal.

What is left of Section 193(8)

The judgment holds that a Section 193(8) breach does not vitiate the police report or unlock default bail. It does not say the requirement is optional.

The practical reading is that the remedy for not receiving copies lies in asking for them and, if necessary, in the trial court’s directions — not in liberty. An accused who is short of documents should pursue supply rather than build a bail application on the omission.

Who argued it

Frequently asked

Does a charge-sheet filed without extra copies entitle an accused to default bail?

No. The Supreme Court held that non-filing of additional copies under Section 193(8) BNSS does not vitiate the charge-sheet or police report itself, and cannot be construed to produce the same result as Section 187(3).

When does the right to default bail arise under the BNSS?

When the charge-sheet is not filed within sixty or ninety days, as applicable. Once a charge-sheet complying with the form prescribed under Section 193(3) is filed within that period, the right to default bail ceases.

Is the BNSS position on default bail different from the CrPC?

No. The Court held that as was the case under the erstwhile CrPC, the position under the BNSS is to remain that the right arises on non-filing within the applicable period and ceases once the charge-sheet is filed.

What is the remedy if additional copies are not supplied?

The judgment holds only that the omission does not vitiate the report or create a right to default bail. The practical course is to seek supply of the documents and time to deal with them, rather than to found a bail application on the omission.

What was the case about?

A cyber fraud of Rs 3.81 crore, with the FIR registered under Section 61(2) read with Sections 318, 336 and 340 BNS, Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 66 of the IT Act. The charge-sheet was filed on 2 September 2025, within the statutory period.

If you are running a default bail application

1. Ask one question first: was a charge-sheet filed within sixty or ninety days, as applicable? If it was, the right to default bail has ceased and the application will not succeed on paperwork defects.
2. Check compliance with the form prescribed by Section 193(3), which is the provision the Court treated as governing whether a valid police report exists.
3. Do not build the application on Section 193(8). Non-supply of additional copies does not vitiate the report.
4. If copies are genuinely missing, apply for supply and for time, and put the prejudice on the record — that is the route the judgment leaves open.
5. Do not assume the BNSS altered settled CrPC positions. On this point the Court held the position remains as it was.

Source. Supreme Court of India, 2026 INSC 666, [2026] 7 S.C.R. 538, Criminal Appeal No. 3094 of 2026, decided 1 July 2026 by Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.

Claw tracks Supreme Court of India and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in