The right to default bail is fundamental and cannot be negated by filing a charge-sheet shortly before the legal deadline without appropriate justification.

JUDGMENT :

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, C.J.

1. A Praecipe was filed through the office of the Public Prosecutor seeking circulation for urgent hearing. At that time, no formal application seeking leave of this Court for filing the charge- sheet against Mangesh Pandurang Kadam was filed on behalf of the Investigating Agency. In that Praecipe, it is stated that sufficient evidence has been collected against Mangesh Pandurang Kadam and the investigation qua him is complete. It is further stated that the period of 90 days would be complete on 9^th December 2025 and, therefore, this Court may permit the Investigating Agency to file the charge-sheet against the said accused in the trial Court. It is also stated in the Praecipe that “the petitioners” will get benefit of default bail if charge-sheet is not filed.

2. This writ petition was listed on 10^th, 14^th and 22^nd November 2025 and the interim order dated 29^th September 2025 was extended and remained in force. In the meantime, the order dated 29^th September 2025 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 5137 of 2025 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 16050 of 2025 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Since the circulation was granted on the basis of the Praecipe filed on behalf of the Investigating Agency, the matter was again listed on 5^th December 2025 but could not be heard on that day on account of paucity of time and it was stand over for 8^th December 2025.

3. On 8^th December 2025, a few judgments were cited by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.1 and the matter was adjourned for today to enable the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to examine those judgments.

4. Referring to the Praecipe filed by the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State of Maharashtra dated 2^nd December 2025, Mr. Ravi Kadam, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner no.2 (hereinafter referred to as respondent no.1) submits that all applications before the Court should be made in writing as provided under Chapter IV Rule 1 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960.

5. The learned senior counsel further submits that the judgment in Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India & Ors. in Writ Petition (Cri.) No. 60 of 2023 has been referred to a 3-Judge Bench and the issue regarding grant of default bail to an accused when an incomplete and truncated charge-sheet has been filed is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learned senior counsel has drawn our attention to an order dated 31^st July 2025 by which the review petition against the judgment in “Ritu Chhabaria” vide Review Petition (Cri.) No.124 of 2025 filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learned senior counsel has also drawn our attention to the pending reference before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on a similar issue in Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No.5724 of 2023 titled “Directorate of Enforcement v. Manpreet Singh Talwar”.

6. Mr. Ravi Kadam, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has referred to and relied on the following judgments:

(i) The State of West Bengal v. Dharam Paswan, 2020 SCC OnLine Cal 739

(ii) Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67

(iii) Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India & Ors., (2024) 12 SCC 116

7. Mr. Jatin Sehgal, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has tendered a copy of the written submissions and the list of jud