The right to default bail is extinguished upon the filing of the final report within the statutory period. Cognizance by the court need not occur within this period, as the submission of the report signifies the completion of the investigation stage.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. Heard Mr. N. Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This is an application for default bail in connection with Sadiya P.S. Case No. 94/2025 (corresponding to POCSO Case No. 4/2026), arising out of Sadiya P.S. Case No. 94/2025 pending before the Court of the learned Additional Session Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Tinsukia.

3. The undisputed facts of the case are as follows.

4. Since this is an application for default bail alleging non-submission of charge sheet within the stipulated period as per law, the undisputed facts may be recounted.

5. As per the allegations, on 26.08.2025 at around 10:30 am, the accused person went to the house of the victim (aged about 17 years) and by gagging her mouth and use of threats, committed penetrative sexual assault upon her and left. Out of fear, the victim remained silent for some time but ultimately disclosed the matter to her mother, whereupon, local people apprehended the accused and handed him over to the police and accordingly, the instant case was registered and investigated. Subsequently, the charge sheet has been submitted, and the case is presently pending for consideration of charge.

6. The petitioner was arrested and produced before the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Tinsukia, on 14.09.2025, and on the same day, he was remanded to judicial custody. The statutory period of detention is 90 days, as the offense pertains to Section 6 of the POCSO Act which period would expire on 12.12.2025 and in the event of non-submission of the charge sheet, the petitioner would have become entitled to default bail on 13.12.2025. The charge sheet was submitted to the office of the Special Judge, POCSO, Tinsukia, on 27.10.2025 and was put up on 31.10.2025, which is within the statutory period of detention. However, cognizance of the case was taken on 08.01.2025.

7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the effective date of submission of charge sheet must be regarded as 08.01.2025, inasmuch as that was the effective date on which the court actually perused the charge sheet and took cognizance of the offense under Sections 6 of the POCSO Act/ Section 64 (1) of the BNS.

8. In support of his aforesaid submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Samsun Noor Alias Samsul Noor Vs. The State of Assam , (2022) 5 GLT 405 (Judgment & Order dated 07.10.2022 passed in BA No. 1958/2022) wherein, it has been held as follows:

“38. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that submission of the charge sheet before the Office of the Magistrate/the Court would not be sufficient compliance in terms with Section 173(2) of the Code read with Rule 38 and 69 of the Assam Police Manual Part-IV and it is only when the Magistrate/the Court competent to take cognizance of the offence, puts the initials in the charge-sheet as well as in the Register maintained with date and seal of the Magistrate/the Court, it would be that date on which the charge sheet has been deemed to have been submitted to the Magistrate/Court.”

9. In the aforesaid case, the basic question that had arisen was whether the submission of the charge sheet to the office would constitute substantial compliance with section 173(2) of the CrPC, so as to deprive the accused of the privilege of default bail under Section 167(2) of the read with Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act.

10. In the pres