Default bail and charge sheet copies rule under BNSS 2026

No. If the police or agency filed the charge sheet within the 60 or 90 day limit, you cannot claim default bail just because they did not hand you the extra or additional copies of that charge sheet. In Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. CBI (2026 INSC 666), the Supreme Court held that the requirement to supply additional copies, found in Section 193(8) of the BNSS, is only directory and not mandatory. Once a proper charge sheet reaches the court in time, the right to default bail is gone, whatever happens with copy supply afterwards.

This guide explains when default bail actually applies, what this ruling settled, and the common mistakes accused persons and their families make about it.

Default bail, also called statutory or compulsory bail, is not about the strength of the case against you. It is a safeguard against being kept in custody indefinitely while the investigation drags on. The law gives the investigating agency a fixed window to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet, called the police report or final report. If that window closes and no charge sheet has been filed, the accused earns an indefeasible right to be released on bail, no matter how serious the offence.

Under the proviso to Section 187(3) of the BNSS, which is the successor to Section 167(2) of the old CrPC, the deadlines are:

• 90 days where the offence is punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of ten years or more.
• 60 days for any other offence.

The clock runs from the date the accused is first remanded to custody. If the agency does not file the charge sheet within this period and you apply for bail and are prepared to furnish it, the court must release you. This is a strong, time based right, and courts guard it closely.

The trigger is simple: the investigation was not completed and no charge sheet was filed within the 60 or 90 day limit. Typical situations where the right is alive:

• The 60 or 90 day period expired and the agency has filed nothing at all.
• The agency filed only a preliminary or incomplete report to stop the clock, without actually completing the investigation, and the court finds it was not a genuine charge sheet.
• The agency sought further time or a longer extension than the law allows, and the extension was bad in law.

In each of these, the accused can move an application the moment the deadline passes, before the charge sheet is filed, and claim release. Timing matters: if the charge sheet is filed before you actually apply and are granted bail, the right does not survive.

In Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. CBI, the CBI filed its charge sheet on 2 September 2025, comfortably inside the statutory period, and the contents complied with the form prescribed under Section 193(3) of the BNSS. The accused nevertheless applied for default bail, arguing that because the complete copies of the charge sheet and the accompanying documents had not been supplied to him within the period, he had become entitled to release.

The Supreme Court, through Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, rejected that argument. The Court drew a clean line between two different things:

1. Filing the charge sheet in time under Section 187(3) read with Section 193(3). This is the core obligation, and failing it is what creates the default bail right.
2. Supplying additional copies of the police report for the accused under Section 193(8), a newer provision. This is an administrative step that follows filing.

The Court held that these two are not the same. In its words, “once the chargesheet is filed, in compliance with the form prescribed under Section 193(3) BNSS, within the aforesaid period, the right to default bail ceases.” It added that “Non-compliance with Section 193(8) of the BNSS cannot be construed to give the same result as Section 187(3) of the BNSS.”

In plain terms: not handing over the extra copies is a directory lapse. It may need to be cured, and the accused is still entitled to receive the copies, but it does not invalidate the charge sheet and it does not revive default bail. The accused was held not entitled to release.

A mandatory requirement is one the law insists on, and breaking it carries a defined legal consequence. Filing the charge sheet within 60 or 90 days is mandatory: miss it, and the accused gets bail as of right.

A directory requirement is one the law expects to be followed, but a lapse does not by itself undo what has been done or create a new right for the other side. Supplying the extra copies is directory in this sense. You can and should insist on getting your copies so you can prepare your defence, but you cannot convert that shortfall into a ticket out of custody.

• Confusing copy supply with charge sheet filing. They are separate steps. Only the failure to file in time triggers default bail.
• Waiting too long to apply. The right is strongest in the gap between the deadline passing and the charge sheet being filed. If you sleep on it, a later filing can defeat you.
• Treating a technical defect as a missing charge sheet. A charge sheet that is filed in the proper form counts, even if some documents or copies come later.
• Confusing default bail with the undertrial limits under Section 479. That is a different right about long detention during trial. See our separate guide.
• Assuming default bail is automatic. You must actually apply and be ready to furnish bail; the court does not release you on its own.

For how to prepare and move the application itself, see our guide on how to file a bail application.

No. As the Supreme Court held in the 2026 ruling, a charge sheet filed within the 60 or 90 day limit in the proper form ends the default bail right. Not receiving the extra copies is a directory lapse that you can raise separately, but it does not put you back in line for statutory bail.

Ninety days for offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or ten years or more, and sixty days for other offences, counted from the date of first remand, under the proviso to Section 187(3) of the BNSS.

The proviso to Section 187(3) of the BNSS, which replaced Section 167(2) of the old CrPC. It is the provision that fixes the 60 and 90 day limits and the consequence of missing them.

It deals with supplying additional copies of the police report or charge sheet. The Supreme Court has now held this requirement is directory, so a failure here does not invalidate the charge sheet or create a default bail right.

No. Section 479 of the BNSS deals with release after an accused has spent a set fraction of the maximum sentence in detention during trial. Default bail is about the charge sheet not being filed within 60 or 90 days. Read our page on default and undertrial bail under Section 479.

Yes. Losing on default bail does not close the door on regular bail on the merits. For a non bailable offence you can apply under the ordinary bail provisions. See our guide on bail in a non bailable offence under Section 480.

If you are dealing with an arrest or an ongoing investigation, know your rights before custody as well. Our guide on the Section 35 notice before arrest explains when the police must issue a notice instead of arresting you. To understand the process end to end, read The RTI Playbook, and if you need to frame a clean application or RTI request about your case, use the free AI RTI Drafter tool.

This article is general legal information, not a substitute for advice from a lawyer on your specific facts.

Reviewed by Dr. Shrawan Kumar Pathak.

• Verdictum: https://www.verdictum.in/supreme-court/2026-insc-666-shaurya-sunil-kumar-singh-v-cbi-1616990
• Law Trend: https://lawtrend.in/filing-of-chargesheet-ends-right-to-default-bail-even-if-additional-copies-under-section-1938-bnss-are-omitted-supreme-court/
• LiveLaw: https://www.livelaw.in/sc-judgments/2026-livelaw-sc-649-shaurya-sunil-kumar-singh-versus-central-bureau-of-investigation-539496