Supreme Court: Non-filing of a copy of the chargesheet cannot become a ground for default bail if chargesheet is filed within stipulated time

 In the above backdrop, we are of the considered view that the present Appellant is not entitled to the relief of default bail. Undoubtedly, it is borne from the record that the chargesheet/police report stood filed within the prescribed statutory time before the magistrate on 02.09.2025. The contents thereof, being in compliance with Section 193(3) BNSS. Consequently, on 02.09.2025, the right to default bail became extinguished and the Appellant ought to have applied for regular bail. Moreover, it is also a matter of record that cognizance has also been taken on the chargesheet filed by the investigating agency. This order has not been challenged to date, thereby implying that the contents of the charge-sheet are in accordance with law. {Para 26}

27. Consequently, in our view, the Courts below have rightly held that the non-filing of a copy of the chargesheet cannot become a ground for default bail and the submission of the Appellant cannot be accepted.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 3094 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4333 of 2026)

Decided On: 01.07.2026

Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 666, MANU/SC/0658/2026

Print Page

Delhi HC: Whether accused is entitled to get default bail if chargesheet is filed without obtaining Sanction U/S 39 of Arms Act

 The maximum period of 180 days which is being granted to the investigating agency to complete the investigation in the case wherein the prosecution is for the offence under UAPA is not something in the form of a package that everything has to be completed including obtaining of sanction within this period of 180 days. As observed above, the investigating agency has nothing to do with sanction. Sanction is altogether a different process. Sanction is accorded, based on the materials collected by the investigating agency which forms the part of the final report under Section 173CrPC. The investigating agency gets full 180 days to complete the investigation. To say that obtaining of sanction and placing the same along with the charge-sheet should be done within the period of 180 days is something which is not only contrary to the provisions of law discussed above, but is inconceivable." {Para 53}

37. In view of the above judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, the filing of the chargesheet against the Applicant in the present case, without sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act, does not render the said chargesheet incomplete under Section 193(3) of the BNSS. Consequently, the case of the Applicant that it is entitled to default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS, is without any merit as obtaining sanction is not contemplated under the said provision.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Bail Appln. 1713/2025

Decided On: 25.06.2025

Suraj Kanojia Vs. State Govt of Nct of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Tejas Karia, J.

Citation: MANU/DE/4621/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Trial Court Cannot Take Cognizance Of Offence Not Mentioned In Chargesheet Only Based On Private Witness's Affidavit

 After giving due consideration to the issue at hand, we find

that the impugned order needs interference. The Court at the

outset, would make it clear that in principle, there is no quarrel

to the proposition that the Trial Court is within its powers to

alter the charge or to frame alternative charges. Further, the High

Court also has the power to direct for fresh consideration. In the

present case, we find that the manner in which the exercise has

been conducted is not in accordance with law. After the matter

being remanded by the High Court, it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to form a satisfaction of its own with regard to applicability of Section 394 of the IPC independently, based on the materials produced either by the complainant or by the defence and from the investigating agency or in the alternative to conduct the inquiry of its own. In the present case, when the allegation was that witnesses had made certain statements before the Police, which was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the “Cr.P.C.”), it was the duty of the prosecution to produce all such statements to the Court, which was not done. Then obviously, the Trial Court was required to call upon the Police to produce the entire case diary recording the complete statements of all the witnesses. Thereafter, upon perusing the same, especially, the portions which had not been forwarded to the Court earlier, the Trial Court could have formed an independent opinion as to whether ingredients of various Sections including Section 394 of the IPC were made out. This has not happened. In fact, only on the basis of affidavits of witnesses filed along with the petition on behalf of the complainant, the Court has taken cognizance under Section 394 of the IPC. We do not approve of such exercise in the manner it has been done. {Para 8}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.6904 of 2025)

DEEPAK YADAV AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER 

Dated: 17th SEPTEMBER, 2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether filing of charge sheet, existence of lengthy witness lists, or prospect of prolonged trial can justify grant of bail in heinous offences

 Whether mere filing of charge sheet, existence of lengthy witness lists, or prospect of prolonged trial can justify grant of bail in heinous offences -- Held, mere filing of the charge sheet, existence of a long list of witnesses, or possibility of delay in trial, cannot, by themselves, constitute valid reasons to dilute the gravity of the offence or to disregard the case put forth by the prosecution -- Such factors are not standalone grounds for the grant of bail in heinous offences involving murder -- Penal Code, 1860, S.302.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 3528-3534 of 2025 

Decided On: 14.08.2025

State of Karnataka Vs. Darshan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Author: R. Mahadevan, J.

Citation: 2025 KHC 6693: 2025 INSC 979, MANU/SC/1098/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether the court should grant bail to accused as chargesheet is filed which amounts to change of circumstances?

On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, we find that he has been swayed by the factum that when a charge-sheet is filed it amounts to change of circumstance. Needless to say, filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge-sheet establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the charge-sheet for trial of the Accused persons. {Para 13}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 601 of 2017

Decided On: 28.03.2017

Virupakshappa Gouda and Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipak Misra and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.

Author: Dipak Misra, J.

Citation: 2017 AIR(SC)1685, MANU/SC/0344/2017.

Print Page

What precautions a Session judge should take while deciding bail application for an offence under S 302 of IPC after chargesheet is filed?

 Executive Summary

When deciding bail applications for offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code after the filing of a chargesheet, Sessions Judges must adopt a cautious, reasoned approach that balances individual liberty with public safety. Recent jurisprudence from the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court establishes clear guidelines that demand rigorous judicial scrutiny, detailed reasoning, and careful consideration of multiple factors before granting bail in murder cases.

Fundamental Legal Framework

The Prima Facie Evidence Standard

Sessions Judges must assess whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused committed the offence, but are not required to conduct a mini-trial or establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court should examine whether a genuine case exists against the accused and whether the prosecution can produce prima facie evidence supporting the charges.

Print Page

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

 Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Judgebir Singh v. NIA, MANU/SC/0501/2023 : 2023:INSC:472 : (2023) 17 SCC 48 referred to the judgment in Suresh Kumar (supra) and 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]. 

"45. We find no merit in the principal argument canvassed on behalf of the appellants that a charge-sheet filed without sanction is an incomplete charge-sheet which could be termed as not in consonance with sub- section (5) of Section 173CrPC. It was conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the charge-sheet was filed well within the statutory time period i.e. 180 days, however, the court concerned could not have taken cognizance of such charge-sheet in the absence of the orders of sanction not being a part of such charge-sheet. Whether the sanction is required or not under a statute, is a question that has to be considered at the time of taking cognizance of the offence and not during inquiry or investigation. There is a marked distinction in the stage of investigation and prosecution. The prosecution starts when the cognizance of offence is taken. It is also to be kept in mind that cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender. It cannot be said that obtaining sanction from the competent authorities or the authorities concerned is part of investigation. Sanction is required only to enable the court to take cognizance of the offence. The court may take cognizance of the offence after the sanction order was produced before the court, but the moment, the final report is filed along with the documents that may be relied on by the prosecution, then the investigation will be deemed to have been completed. Taking cognizance is entirely different from completing the investigation. To complete the investigation and file a final report is a duty of the investigating agency, but taking cognizance of the offence is the power of the court. The court in a given case, may not take cognizance of the offence for a particular period of time even after filing of the final report. In such circumstance, the accused concerned cannot claim their indefeasible right under Section 167(2)CrPC for being released on default bail. What is contemplated under Section 167(2)CrPC is that the Magistrate or Designated Court (as the case may be) has no powers to order detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days or 90 days or 60 days as the case may be. If the investigation is concluded within the prescribed period, no right accrues to the accused concerned to be released on bail under the proviso to Section 167(2)CrPC. {Para 36}

46. Once a final report has been filed with all the documents on which the prosecution proposes to rely, the investigation shall be deemed to have been completed. After completing investigation and submitting a final report to the court, the investigating officer can send a copy of the final report along with the evidence collected and other materials to the sanctioning authority to enable the sanctioning authority to apply his mind to accord sanction. According sanction is the duty of the sanctioning authority who is not connected with the investigation at all. In case the sanctioning authority takes some time to accord sanction, that does not vitiate the final report filed by the investigating agency before the court. Section 173CrPC does not speak about the sanction order at all. Section 167CrPC also speaks only about investigation and not about cognizance by the Magistrate. Therefore, once a final report has been filed, that is the proof of completion of investigation and if final report is filed within the period of 180 days or 90 days or 60 days from the initial date of remand of accused concerned, he cannot claim that a right has accrued to him to be released on bail for want of filing of sanction order.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Bail Appln. 1713/2025

Decided On: 25.06.2025

Suraj Kanojia Vs. State Govt of Nct of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Tejas Karia, J.

Citation: MANU/DE/4621/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Chargesheet Sufficient To Prove Negligence, Eyewitness Testimony Not Mandatory in motor accident claim petition

It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver. {Para 4}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

RANJEET & ANR. Vs  ABDUL KAYAM NEB & ANR.

Dated: FEBRUARY 25, 2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Magistrate Cannot Direct Police To Include Accused In Charge Sheet; Instead may Issue Summons To Person Proposed To Be Added

The Court has the power to differ from the Final Form submitted by the Police and take cognizance of a crime and also against persons who may not have been sent up for trial by the Police after investigation. In such circumstances,the Court is then required to issue summons instead of directing for inclusion of the name of the person in the charge-sheet. Thus, ultimately, the result is the same, that is, the person concerned is arrayed as an accused upon taking cognizance after application ofmind by the Court and accordingly, summons are issued. Thus, the order which in essence is of summons as an accused, cannot be faulted. (Para 3)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).3649/2025; 

GOPAL PRADHAN  Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH; J., PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA; J.

Dated: 17-03-2025.

Print Page

Bombay HC: The Session Judge must frame charge against against the under trial prisoners as early as possible and not beyond the period of six months from the date of filing of the chargesheet

6.5. In the result, all the Sessions Judges/Assistant Sessions Judgesin the State including Union Territories are directed to frame charge against the under trial prisoners as early as possible and not beyond the period of six months from the date of filing of the chargesheet. They shall not wait for draft charge from the office of the Public Prosecutor. The Sessions Judges/Assistant Sessions Judges are at liberty to pass specific orders, if there is/are dilatory tactics on the part of the under trial prisoner to prolong the stage of framing of charge.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1575 OF 2024

Vijay Rajendra Bhosale Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

 DATED : 17 th OCTOBER, 2024.

Print Page

Whether accused is entitled to be released on default bail if further investigation in respect of other accused is pending or for production of some documents?

In this regard, this Court recently held in case of CBI v. Kapil Wadhwan and Anr.2 that:

Once from the material produced along with the chargesheet, the court is satisfied about the commission of an offence and takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the Accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) is pending or not. The pendency of the further investigation qua the other Accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of chargesheet would neither vitiate the chargesheet, nor would it entitle the Accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was an incomplete chargesheet or that the chargesheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1511 of 2024 

Decided On: 12.03.2024

Dablu Kujur Vs. The State of Jharkhand

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.

Author: Bela M. Trivedi, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0194/2024.

Print Page

What are Supreme court Guidelines if investigating officer does not file documents favourable to accused at the time of filing of chargesheet?

 The amici pointed out that at the commencement of trial, accused are only furnished with list of documents and statements which the prosecution relies on and are kept in the dark about other material, which the police or the prosecution may have in their possession, which may be exculpatory in nature, or absolve or help the accused. This court is of the opinion that while furnishing the list of statements, documents and material objects under Sections 207/208, Cr. PC, the magistrate should also ensure that a list of other materials, (such as statements, or objects/documents seized, but not relied on) should be furnished to the accused. This is to ensure that in case the accused is of the view that such materials are necessary to be produced for a proper and just trial, she or he may seek appropriate orders, under the Cr. PC.3 for their production during the trial, in the interests of justice. It is directed accordingly; the draft rules have been accordingly modified. [Rule 4(i)] {Para 11}

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

SUO MOTO WRIT (CRL) NO.(S) 1/2017

IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS  Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 

Coram: S.A. BOBDE J, L. NAGESWARA RAO J, S. RAVINDRA BHAT J

Dated: April 20, 2021.

Leading Supreme court judgment laying down procedure for expeditious trial of Criminal cases

https://www.lawweb.in/2021/04/supreme-court-directs-high-courts-to.html

Print Page

Supreme Court: Chargesheet Must Contain Clear & Complete Entries, Specify Role Of Each Accused

 Therefore, the investigating officer must make clear and complete entries of all columns in the chargesheet so that the court can clearly understand which crime has been committed by which accused and what is the material evidence available on the file. Statements under Section 161 of the Code and related documents have to be enclosed with the list of witnesses. The role played by the accused in the crime should be separately and clearly mentioned in the chargesheet, for each of the accused persons. {Para 31}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

SHARIF AHMED AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

Author: SANJIV KHANNA, J.

Dated: MAY 01, 2024.

Citation: 2024 INSC 363.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme court: Investigating Officer Is Not Required To Arrest Each And Every Accused At The Time Of Filing of Charge-sheet

 We are, in fact, faced with a situation where

contrary to the observations in Joginder Kumar’s

case how a police officer has to deal with a

scenario of arrest, the trial courts are stated

to be insisting on the arrest of an accused as a

pre-requisite formality to take the chargesheet

on record in view of the provisions of Section

170 of the Cr.P.C. We consider such a course

misplaced and contrary to the very intent of

Section 170 of the Cr.P.C.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.838 OF 2021

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.5442/2021)

SIDDHARTH Vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. 

Dated: AUGUST 16, 2021.

Citation :(2022) 1 SCC 676.

Print Page

Whether accused can claim benefit of default bail if investigation regarding other accused is going on?

  It is a well-settled principle of interpretation of statute that it

is to be read in its entirety. Construction of a statute should be

made in a manner so as to give effect to all the provisions

thereof. Remand of an accused is contemplated by Parliament

at two stages; pre-cognizance and post-cognizance. Even in

the same case, depending upon the nature of charge-sheet

filed by the investigating officer in terms of Section 173 of the

Code, a cognizance may be taken as against the person

against whom an offence is said to have been made out and

against whom no such offence has been made out even when

investigation is pending. So long a charge-sheet is not filed

within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the

Code, investigation remains pending. It, however, does not

preclude an investigating officer, as noticed hereinbefore, to

carry on further investigation despite filing of a police report, in

terms of sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code.

39. The statutory scheme does not lead to a conclusion in

regard to an investigation leading to filing of final form under

sub-section (2) of Section 173 and further investigation

contemplated under sub-section (8) thereof. Whereas only

when a charge-sheet is not filed and investigation is kept

pending, benefit of proviso appended to sub-section (2) of

Section 167 of the Code would be available to an offender;

once, however, a charge-sheet is filed, the said right ceases.

Such a right does not revive only because a further

investigation remains pending within the meaning of subsection

(8) of Section 173 of the Code.”{Para 38}

25. In view of the afore-stated legal position, we have no hesitation in holding that the chargesheet having been filed against the respondents-accused within the prescribed time limit and the cognizance having been taken by the Special Court of the offences allegedly committed by them, the respondents could not have claimed the statutory right of default bail under Section167(2) on the ground that the investigation qua other accused was pending. Both, the Special Court as well as the High Court having committed serious error of law in disregarding the legal position enunciated and settled by this Court, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and are accordingly set aside.

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 391 OF 2024

( @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 11775 OF 2023)

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs

KAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR

Author: BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

Dated: JANUARY, 24TH 2024.

Citation: 2024 INSC 58.

Print Page

Whether the accused is entitled to be released on default bail if chargesheet is submitted in language which he does not understand?

 Under Section 207, it is the obligation of the learned

Judicial Magistrate to supply a copy of the report and other

documents as provided in Section 207 to the accused. In a

case triable by the Court of Sessions, Section 208 provides for

the learned Magistrate to provide copies of the statements and

documents to the accused including the statements and

confessions recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. When a

copy of the report and the documents are supplied to the

accused under Section 207 and/or Section 208, an

opportunity is available for the accused to contend that he

does not understand the language in which the final report or

the statements or documents are written. But he must raise

this objection at the earliest. In such a case, if the accused is

appearing in person and wants to defend himself without

opting for legal aid, perhaps there may be a requirement of

supplying a translated version of the charge sheet and

documents or the relevant part thereof concerning the said

accused to him. It is, however, subject to the accused

satisfying the Court that he is unable to understand the

language in which the charge sheet is submitted. When the

accused is represented by an advocate who fully understands

the language of the final report or charge sheet, there will not

be any requirement of furnishing translations to the accused

as the advocate can explain the contents of the charge sheet

to the accused. If both the accused and his advocate are not

conversant with the language in which the charge sheet has

been filed, then the question of providing translation may

arise. The reason is that the accused must get a fair

opportunity to defend himself. He must know and understand

the material against him in the charge sheet. That is the

essence of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. With the

availability of various software and Artificial Intelligence tools

for making translations, providing translations will not be

that difficult now. In the cases mentioned aforesaid, the

Courts can always direct the prosecution to provide a

translated version of the charge sheet. But we must hasten to

add that a charge sheet filed within the period provided either

under Section 167 of CrPC or any other relevant statute in a

language other than the language of the Court or the

language which the accused does not understand, is not

illegal and no one can claim a default bail on that ground.

{Para 19}

 2023INSC770

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2592 OF 2023

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs  Narottam Dhakad & Anr.

Author: ABHAY S. OKA, J.

Dated: August 25, 2023.

Print Page

Bombay HC Directs Police To file Photos of victim in sealed cover alongwith chargesheet to avoid disclosure of identity of Victim of Sexual assault

We would like to specifically mention here that Section 228-A was inserted in Indian Penal Code with effect from 25.12.1983, which prohibits disclosure of identity of the victim of certain offences. By S. 4 of Act 13 of 2013, words "offence under Sections 376, 376A, 376B, 376C or section 376D" were substituted/inserted with effect from 03.02.2013. Thereafter, by Act 22 of 2018 further amendment in respect of other Sections has been made with effect from 21.04.2018. Thus, the identity of the victim cannot be disclosed by any of the authorities in the charge-sheet. Nowadays, we are finding that photographs are taken i.e. either the old photographs are collected or even victim showing the spot of occurrence are taken and those photographs are produced in the charge-sheet. We do not say that such photographs should not be collected or should not be taken, but we expect that those photographs should not be openly added as part of charge-sheet. A charge-sheet travels from the office of the investigating agency (may be handled by many persons), then it comes to either the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class or directly presented before the learned Special Judge where also it is handled by many persons. Under such circumstance, the identity of the victim is disclosed. The investigating agency has to be sensitive in the matter. If they want to produce such documents, then it should be put in a sealed envelope including in the copies of the charge-sheet also, so that the identity of the victim is not disclosed in any manner. In the catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, it has been stressed that the identity of the victim in such cases, i.e. under Section 376 and other Sections of Indian Penal Code, POCSO Act, should not be disclosed. We are constrained to make these observations, as we are coming across such incidences time and again. We may also observe that when it was found that the accused facing charge under these Sections want to rely on certain photographs in which victim is seen then those photographs are openly placed/annexed in the petition. Coordinate Bench at Principal Seat has given directions that they should be filed under sealed envelope. We take those directions further and direct all the concerned agencies, who are dealing with the investigation of such crime that henceforth the photographs of such victims should be filed in sealed envelope before the concerned Courts. We may also say that failure to follow the directions may invite the action for the offence under Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code. These directions are also to the concerned Courts where the charge-sheet is accepted. They should also see that such photographs are produced in sealed envelope before them and the identity of the victim is not disclosed in any manner.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 2022

Decided On: 08.02.2023

Sajjan  Vs.  The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi and Abhay S. Waghwase, JJ.

Citation: MANU/MH/0509/2023.

Print Page

Is the chargesheet a public document, and should the police upload it on their website?

4.2. Even the relief which is sought in the present writ petition directing that all the challans/chargesheets filed Under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure shall be put on public domain/websites of the State Governments shall be contrary to the Scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure a duty is cast upon the Investigating Officer to supply to the Accused the copy of the police report and other documents including the First Information Report recorded Under Section 154 Code of Criminal Procedure and the statements recorded Under Sub-section 3 of Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure.

4.5. Therefore on conjoint reading of Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure the Investigating Agency is required to furnish the copies of the report along with the relevant documents to be relied upon by the prosecution to the Accused and to none others. Therefore, if the relief as prayed in the present petition is allowed and all the chargesheets and relevant documents produced along with the chargesheets are put on the public domain or on the websites of the State Governments it will be contrary to the Scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it may as such violate the rights of the Accused as well as the victim and/or even the investigating agency. Putting the FIR on the website cannot be equated with putting the chargesheets along with the relevant documents on the public domain and on the websites of the State Governments.

5. Now so far as the reliance placed upon on Sections 74 & 76 of the Evidence Act is concerned, the reliance placed upon the said provisions are also absolutely misconceived and misplaced. Documents mentioned in Section 74 of the Evidence Act only can be said to be public documents, the certified copies of which are to be given by the concerned police officer having the custody of such a public document. Copy of the chargesheet along with the necessary documents cannot be said to be public documents within the definition of Public Documents as per Section 74 of the Evidence Act. As per Section 75 of the Evidence Act all other documents other than the documents mentioned in Section 74 of the Evidence Act are all private documents. Therefore, the chargesheet/documents along with the chargesheet cannot be said to be public documents Under Section 74 of the Evidence Act, reliance placed upon Sections 74 & 76 of the Evidence Act is absolutely misplaced. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1126 of 2022

Decided On: 20.01.2023

Saurav Das  Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.

Author: M.R. Shah, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0066/2023.

Print Page

Can the accused seek default bail if the police have filed an incomplete chargesheet without obtaining sanction for prosecution?

In our view, grant of sanction is nowhere contemplated Under Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure. What the said Section contemplates is the completion of investigation in respect of different types of cases within a stipulated period and the right of an Accused to be released on bail on the failure of the investigating authorities to do so. {Para 17}

18. None of the said cases detract from the position that once a charge-sheet is filed within the stipulated time, the question of grant of default bail or statutory bail does not arise. As indicated hereinabove, in our view, the filing of charge-sheet is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(ii) in this case. Whether cognizance is taken or not is not material as far as Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned. The right which may have accrued to the Petitioner, had charge-sheet not been filed, is not attracted to the facts of this case. Merely because sanction had not been obtained to prosecute the Accused and to proceed to the stage of Section 309 Code of Criminal Procedure, it cannot be said that the Accused is entitled to grant of statutory bail, as envisaged in Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure. 

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1011 of 2023 and 1012 of 2023

Judgebir Singh and Ors.  Vs. National Investigation Agency

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.I. and J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Decided On: 01.05.2023.

Citation: MANU/SC/0501/2023

Print Page

Whether Special Court Can Order FIR Against Investigating Officer For Failure To File Chargesheet Within 180 Days U/ S 59 of NDPS Act?

 The learned Judge on the basis of the material on record has

recorded his prima facie opinion about the commission of an

offence under Section 59 of N.D.P.S. Act by this applicant.

The learned Judge has not awarded any sentence to him. So

the right of the accused to meet the case which he would be

made to face has not in any way tinkered with or taken away.

18. It is to be noted that the approach of the learned

Judge being Special Judge under the N.D.P.S. Act is consistent

with the object and spirit of the enactment. It is to be noted

that while implementing the provisions of the enactment such

as N.D.P.S. Act all concerned at their respective place are

required to demonstrate equal seriousness. If such seriousness

is not demonstrated then it can frustrate the object and

intention of such enactment. It needs to be stated that in

order to ensure such seriousness by all concerned the stringent

provisions have been made. Section 59 of the N.D.P.S. Act is

one such stringent provision. It provides for penal

consequences in case of an act by anyone, which is not

consistent with the object and intention. It is submitted that

the opportunity was not given to him to explain the reasons

for delay in filing the charge sheet. In my view, this objection

can be taken care of by perusing the questions put to the

applicant and answers given by him. He has categorically

stated that investigation was complete on 13.10.2021. It is not

his case that after these questions by the Court and answers

given by him, he was in any manner prevented by the Court

from placing on record his explanation. The questions put to

him and answers given by him to those questions clearly

indicate that he was granted an opportunity to explain each

and every aspect. In fact the applicant has admitted that in all

respect the investigation was completed on 13.10.2021.

Applicant had an opportunity to place his detailed explanation

on record when he was called upon to file the say to the bail

application. The perusal of the say or reply to the bail

application would show that it was conspicuously silent

about the reasons for delay in filing the charge sheet. In fact

the say filed by the prosecutor on 27.01.2022 would reveal

that on phone, he had questioned the applicant about the

delay in filing the charge sheet. However, he did not answer

him. He finally went to meet him on 28.01.2022. It is,

therefore, seen that throughout the proceeding, he has not

placed the reasons for delay in filing the charge sheet on

record. It is, therefore, seen that the failure on his part is

serious wrong. Learned judge has found that this wrong is

fully covered within the dragnet of Section 59 (1) of the

NDPS Act.

25. In my view, therefore, this decision recognizes the

powers of the court to pass such an order. It is true that in this

case, the order of initiation of disciplinary action was passed.

The question whether the case warrants a disciplinary action

or penal action depends upon the facts and circumstances of

each and every case. In this case, the learned Judge found it

appropriate to order initiation of a penal action as provided

under Section 59 of N.D.P.S. Act. It needs to be stated that as

and when it is found by any Court at any stage of proceeding

that the actionable wrong within the meaning of Section 59 of

the N.D.P.S. Act has been committed then in that event it has

to be approached and dealt with firmly by initiating an

appropriate action. In this view of the matter, I do not see any

substance in the revision. The same is accordingly dismissed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.106 OF 2022

Ashish Devidas Morkhade  Vs  State of Maharashtra 

CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.

DATE:- 21/04/2023

Print Page