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

The petitioner was an accused in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.

The original chargesheet was filed on 22 December 2012 against six accused, of whom three were arrested and three, including the petitioner, were shown as absconding.

The investigation concerning the absconding accused continued under Section 173(8) CrPC.

After the arrest of one absconding accused, a supplementary chargesheet was filed on 9 March 2015.

Subsequently, a supplementary chargesheet dated 1 July 2017 was filed against the petitioner while he was still absconding, stating that his arrest alone remained pending and that the investigation had otherwise been completed.

The petitioner was eventually arrested on 18 March 2025.

After his arrest, the prosecution sought time on several occasions to file a further supplementary chargesheet but did not do so.

The petitioner claimed default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS, arguing that no supplementary chargesheet had been filed within the prescribed period after his arrest.

The Trial Court rejected his application for default bail.

The petitioner challenged that order before the High Court.

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision and upheld the Trial Court's rejection of default bail.

The Court found that a supplementary chargesheet had in fact been filed against the petitioner on 1 July 2017 while he was absconding.

The Court held that the chargesheet specifically named the petitioner, recorded that he had been absconding and stated that his arrest alone remained pending after completion of investigation.

The fact that the Trial Court's order dated 5 July 2017 specifically mentioned another co-accused did not invalidate the chargesheet against the petitioner, particularly when the original record established that the chargesheet was part of the Court record.

The Court held that the subsequent request by the Investigating Agency for time to conduct further investigation did not mean that the original investigation remained incomplete.

Further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC can continue even after filing of the chargesheet.

Since a valid chargesheet had already been filed against the petitioner during his abscondence, the statutory/default bail period could not be calculated afresh from the date of his subsequent arrest.

The judgment draws an important distinction between completion of investigation and further investigation. Filing a chargesheet signifies completion of the investigation to the extent necessary for placing the accused before the Court, while Section 173(8) permits additional investigation thereafter.

The Court's approach prevents an absconding accused from obtaining a fresh statutory-bail advantage merely because he remained unavailable to the investigating agency and was arrested years after the chargesheet had already been filed.

The decisive factor was not simply that the petitioner had been arrested later, but that a valid chargesheet specifically covering him had already been placed before the Court.

The Court also rejected the argument that subsequent requests for a supplementary chargesheet automatically meant that the statutory investigation period had remained incomplete.

The decision reinforces the principle that default bail is linked to failure to complete investigation and file the required police report within the statutory period. Once the requisite chargesheet has been filed, the indefeasible right arising from such default does not continue merely because further investigation may subsequently take place.

The Court's examination of the original record was particularly significant. Although the petitioner relied on the Trial Court's omission to mention his name in the operative portion of the 5 July 2017 order, the High Court found that the actual supplementary chargesheet dated 1 July 2017 clearly identified him and recorded that only his arrest remained.

The ruling therefore establishes that further investigation after arrest is not synonymous with an absence of a chargesheet. Unless the statutory requirement of filing a chargesheet has itself remained unfulfilled, the accused cannot claim default bail merely because additional investigation or a supplementary report is contemplated.

At the same time, the judgment does not prevent an accused from challenging an actually defective or nonexistent chargesheet. Its conclusion rests on the factual finding that a valid chargesheet against the petitioner had already been filed during his abscondence.