Bablu @ Arvind Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026

The petitioner filed a criminal revision challenging the Trial Court's order rejecting his application for default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS.

The criminal case arose from allegations involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 IPC.

During the initial investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet on 22 December 2012, showing three accused as arrested while three accused, including the petitioner, were absconding.

Investigation against the absconding accused continued under Section 173(8) CrPC.

After one absconding accused was arrested, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 9 March 2015.

Another supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 1 July 2017 following the arrest of another absconding accused.

On 5 July 2017, proceedings under Section 299 CrPC were initiated against the petitioner while he remained absconding.

Meanwhile, the co-accused were tried and convicted for attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC on 5 March 2022.

The petitioner was arrested only after the conviction of the co-accused and contended that since no supplementary charge-sheet was filed after his arrest, he was entitled to default bail.

The State opposed the plea, arguing that the investigation had already been completed and that no fresh or supplementary charge-sheet was legally required after the petitioner's arrest.

The High Court held that where a charge-sheet has already been filed against an accused during his abscondence, there is no mandatory requirement to file another supplementary charge-sheet after his subsequent arrest.

The Court observed that the investigation had already been completed, and only the petitioner's arrest remained pending because he had continuously absconded.

It noted that the Investigating Agency had made every possible effort to trace and apprehend the petitioner.

The Court found that supplementary proceedings had already been initiated against the petitioner, including proceedings under Section 299 CrPC.

It observed that the omission of the petitioner's name in the operative portion of the Trial Court's order dated 5 July 2017 did not establish that no supplementary charge-sheet had been filed against him.

Relying upon the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court reiterated that further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC may continue even after submission of the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC.

The Court held that merely because the Investigating Agency sought time to conduct further investigation or did not file a fresh supplementary charge-sheet after arrest, it could not be inferred that the investigation remained incomplete.

It observed that the right to default bail arises only where the investigation itself remains incomplete within the prescribed statutory period.

Since the investigation had already culminated in the filing of a valid charge-sheet, the petitioner could not claim default bail merely on account of his subsequent arrest.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision and upheld the order rejecting the petitioner's application for default bail.

The judgment clarifies the distinction between completion of investigation and further investigation under Section 173 CrPC.

The Court correctly held that the filing of the original charge-sheet signifies completion of investigation for the purpose of the accused's statutory right to default bail, even if further investigation subsequently continues.

By relying upon settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court reaffirmed that Section 173(8) CrPC is an enabling provision permitting additional investigation without invalidating the earlier police report.

The ruling prevents an absconding accused from claiming an unintended procedural advantage merely because he was arrested after completion of investigation.

The Court appropriately emphasized that the statutory right to default bail is triggered only by failure to complete investigation within the prescribed period and not by the absence of a fresh supplementary charge-sheet.

The judgment also clarifies the role of Section 299 CrPC, which permits continuation of criminal proceedings and recording of evidence despite the deliberate absence of an absconding accused.

The decision reinforces the principle that procedural provisions should not be interpreted in a manner that rewards an accused for evading arrest.

The ruling is likely to provide important guidance in cases involving absconding accused persons, supplementary investigations, and claims for default bail under the BNSS.

A notable strength of the judgment is its harmonious interpretation of Sections 173(2), 173(8), and 299 CrPC, ensuring procedural efficiency while safeguarding statutory rights.

The judgment strengthens the jurisprudence that default bail remains a safeguard against investigative delay, not a technical remedy arising from every procedural omission.