The right to default bail is extinguished once a charge-sheet is filed, even if filed while the accused is absconding. Subsequent arrest and further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC do not revive the right to statutory bail.

ORDER

This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner/accused challenging the order dtd. 23.02.2026 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hata, District Damoh in RCT No. 355/2012 whereby the JMFC has dismissed petitioner's application dtd. 17.06.2025 filed for grant of default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was absconding, therefore, the police submitted challan/charge-sheet against other co-accused on 05.07.2017 and upon conclusion of trial the judgment was passed on 05.03.2022 in S.T. No. 365/2012 whereby co-accused Rajendra and Vinay were convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) and were sentenced for Rigorous imprisonment of 5 years, whereas co-accused Bhupendra @ Bhupa, Sudama and Kailash were convicted under Section 307 IPC and were sentenced for Rigorous imprisonment of 5 years. He submits that thereafter the petitioner was arrested and produced before the Court/JMFC on 18.03.2025, and upon a request made by the respondent/State, the remand was ordered by the court on 18.03.2025 and thereafter on so many occasions prayer was made on behalf of the respondent/State to file supplementary charge sheet, which is also clear from the order sheet dtd. 06.08.2025 drawn by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hata, District Damoh in S.T. No.16/2025. He also submits that in spite of granting several opportunities, the respondent/State has not filed supplementary challan/charge sheet so far and the JMFC while passing the impugned order and while deciding the application dtd. 17.06.2025, has not taken care of the submissions/ground no. 6 & 7 taken in the application and the effect of non-filing of supplementary charge sheet, especially in the light of decisions in the case of Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI , (2007) 8 SCC 770; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kapil Wadhawan And Another , (2024) 3 SCC 734; Pankaj s/o Sundarlal Yadav v. The State of Maharashtra , through P.S.O., P.S. Gondia And Anr., 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 16425 = 2016 Supreme (Bom) 2034; Sunil Vitthal Wagh v. State of Maharashtra through Senior Inspector Pandharpur- City Police Station, 2024 Supreme (Online) (Bom) 6865 = (2025) 2 MhLJ (Cri) 164 and in the case of Shaikh Hussain alias Lakhan Shaikh Ibrahim and another v. State of Maharashtra given by Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in Criminal Application (APL) No. 839 of 2017. He also submits that after seeking remand of the petitioner/accused and after granting so many opportunities to the respondent/State, it was required to file supplementary challan/charge sheet necessarily and since it was not filed, therefore, the petitioner was entitled for default bail. He further submits that the document filed on 05.07.2017, though bearing the heading “Supplementary Challan/Charge-sheet”, cannot be treated as Supplementary charge-sheet in the eyes of law, as it is merely in the nature of a letter and is not in the format of a final report as contemplated under Section 173 CrPC/ Section 193 BNSS. With these submissions, he prays for allowing the criminal revision.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State supports the impugned order on the ground that since challan was filed on 05.07.2017, although in abscondence of the present petitioner-Bablu and only the petitioner was required to be arrested, therefore, there is no necessity to file supplementary challan/charge sheet especially in the light of letter dtd. 29.05.2025 written by Sub-Inspector-Shesh Kumar Dubey, Police Station- Batiyagarh. With these submissions, he prays for dismissal of the criminal revision.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Perusal of original record shows that originally, the first charge-sheet was filed on 22.12.2012, in which, out of six accused, three were shown as arrested accused, whereas the remaining three accused, namely, Babl