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

The petitioner was one of six accused in a criminal case involving offences including Rioting and Attempt to Murder.

After the incident, three accused were arrested, while the petitioner and two others remained absconding.

The police completed the investigation against the available accused and filed the chargesheet.

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

One absconding accused was later arrested, following which a supplementary chargesheet was filed.

Subsequently, another absconding accused was arrested and another supplementary chargesheet was filed.

The petitioner continued to abscond for several years despite efforts by the Investigating Agency to apprehend him.

During his abscondence, the co-accused were tried and convicted by the Trial Court for offences including Attempt to Murder.

After the conviction of the co-accused, the petitioner was arrested and produced before the Trial Court.

The prosecution sought time for Further Investigation after his arrest, but no fresh supplementary chargesheet was filed thereafter.

The petitioner applied for Default Bail under Section 187(3) BNSS, contending that the investigation remained incomplete due to the absence of a supplementary chargesheet.

The Trial Court rejected the application, leading the petitioner to file the present Criminal Revision before the High Court.

The High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision and upheld the Trial Court's order rejecting Default Bail.

The Court held that where a chargesheet has already been filed against an accused during his abscondence, the Investigating Agency is not legally required to file another supplementary chargesheet merely because the accused is arrested later.

The Court observed that the investigation had already been substantially completed and only the petitioner's arrest remained pending.

It held that seeking time for Further Investigation after arrest does not automatically mean that the investigation is incomplete.

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 found that supplementary chargesheets relating to the petitioner had already been filed during earlier stages of the proceedings.

The Court held that omission of the petitioner's name in the operative part of the Trial Court's order dated 05.07.2017 was merely an inadvertent omission and did not invalidate the supplementary chargesheet.

The Court concluded that the petitioner could not claim Default Bail merely because no fresh supplementary chargesheet was filed after his arrest.

The judgment clarifies the legal distinction between Completion of Investigation and Further Investigation.

The Court reaffirmed that filing of the Police Report under Section 173(2) CrPC signifies completion of investigation for the purpose of Cognizance.

It emphasized that Section 173(8) CrPC merely enables Further Investigation and does not impose a mandatory obligation to file a Supplementary Chargesheet after every subsequent development.

The decision prevents Absconding Accused from obtaining Default Bail solely because they were arrested after submission of the original Chargesheet.

The ruling reinforces that the statutory right to Default Bail depends upon failure to complete investigation within the prescribed period and not upon every procedural step occurring after arrest.

The judgment promotes procedural efficiency by avoiding unnecessary duplication of chargesheets where the investigation has already been completed.

The Court adopted a purposive interpretation of criminal procedure to balance the rights of the accused with the effective administration of criminal justice.

The decision strengthens the principle that an Absconding Accused cannot derive procedural advantages from his own conduct of evading arrest.