Chargesheet Filed Without Arms Act Sanction Not Incomplete for Default Bail: Delhi HC

New Delhi: In a significant ruling on the scope of default bail, the Delhi High Court has held that a chargesheet filed within the statutory period cannot be considered 'incomplete' merely because it lacks the requisite sanction under the Arms Act, 1959. Consequently, an accused cannot claim an indefeasible right to default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) on this ground.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia, while dismissing a bail application, clarified that obtaining sanction is a part of the prosecution process and not the investigation. The completion of investigation is marked by the filing of the final report, and the absence of a sanction order at that stage does not vitiate the report or trigger the right to statutory bail.

---

Background of the Case

The Court was hearing a bail application filed by Suraj Kanojia, accused in an FIR registered for offences including attempt to cause death (Section 331(6) BNS) and offences under the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that on October 25, 2024, Kanojia, along with three co-accused, attacked the complainant's house. It was specifically alleged that Kanojia fired a gun at the house gate and then towards the complainant with an intent to kill.

While the co-accused were arrested, Kanojia absconded and was later arrested in a separate Arms Act case on January 12, 2025. A supplementary chargesheet was filed against him on February 14, 2025, within the prescribed 90-day period.

---

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Submissions: Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, primarily argued for default bail. He contended that the supplementary chargesheet was incomplete as it was filed without the mandatory sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act. He submitted that filing such a "piecemeal" report was a tactic to circumvent the applicant's fundamental right to default bail, which is linked to Article 21 of the Constitution. He relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in M Ravindran v. The Intelligence Officer and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI to emphasize that the right to default bail is an indefeasible right that arises when the investigation is not complete within the statutory timeframe.

State's Submissions: Conversely, Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned APP for the State, vehemently opposed the bail plea. He argued that the chargesheet was filed within the prescribed period, and the mere procedural pendency of a sanction does not render it incomplete. Citing Supreme Court precedents, he submitted that cognizance is taken of an offence, not the offender, and the absence of sanction under the Arms Act does not affect the cognizance of independent offences under the BNS. He further highlighted the gravity of the offence, the applicant's conduct of absconding, and the potential threat to witnesses as strong grounds for denying regular bail.

---

Court's Analysis and Legal Precedents

The central legal question before Justice Karia was whether a chargesheet filed without sanction under the Arms Act is an "incomplete" chargesheet, entitling the accused to default bail.

The Court undertook a detailed analysis of the legal framework and judicial precedents, observing that Section 187(3) of the BNSS is a legislative safeguard for personal liberty under Article 21. However, this right is triggered only when the investigation is not completed and the chargesheet is not filed within the stipulated period.

The Court relied on several key judgments to arrive at its conclusion:

Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra (2013): The Supreme Court held that the grant of sanction is not contemplated under Section 167 of the CrPC (now Section 187 BNSS). The scheme of the provision is concerned with the completion of investigation within a stipulated time.

Judgebir Singh v. NIA (2023): The Apex Court recently reiterated that a chargesheet filed without sanction cannot be termed incomplete. It drew a clear distinction between the stages of investigation and prosecution , noting: > "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... 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.”

Nitin Nagpal v. State (2006): A coordinate bench of the Delhi High Court had previously held that non-obtaining of sanction under the Arms Act may have a legal effect on the prosecution but would not entail that the challan was incomplete or that the investigation was not over.

Based on this settled legal position, Justice Karia concluded that the applicant's plea for default bail was without merit.

---

Decision on Regular Bail

The Court then considered the application for regular bail on its merits. It noted several adverse factors against the applicant: * The grave and serious nature of the accusations, including firing a gun towards the complainant. * The applicant's conduct of absconding after the incident. * His subsequent arrest in another criminal case involving firearms. * The presence of eyewitnesses and corroborative CCTV footage. * The strong possibility of the applicant threatening witnesses and being a flight risk.

Finding no parity with the co-accused, whose roles were distinct, the Court held that it was not a fit case to grant bail.

---

Final Order

Concluding that the filing of the chargesheet without sanction under the Arms Act did not render it incomplete for the purpose of default bail, and considering the gravity of the offence and the applicant's conduct, the Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application.