BENGALURU
The High Court has clarified that an accused cannot claim default bail merely because a charge sheet is filed without certain supporting documents such as Call Detail Records (CDR) or Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports, holding that investigation is a continuing process and not required to be fully complete at the initial stage.
A bench headed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna delivered the ruling while dismissing a petition filed by a Bengaluru resident seeking default bail in a case registered under serious provisions, including the POCSO Act. The court emphasised that filing of a charge sheet within the prescribed time limit satisfies the legal requirement, even if some reports are pending.
The bench observed that criminal investigation evolves over time, with evidence and material being added as the probe progresses. Insisting on a fully complete charge sheet at the outset would place undue pressure on investigating agencies and defeat the purpose of timely filing.
Referring to provisions under criminal procedure law, the court noted that charge sheets must be filed within 60 days for offences punishable with less than 10 years’ imprisonment and within 90 days for more serious offences. These timelines are intended to ensure expeditious investigation, particularly in sensitive cases such as those involving sexual offences and minors.
However, the court made it clear that the absence of documents like FSL, DNA analysis, or CDR at the time of filing does not render the charge sheet invalid, nor does it entitle the accused to statutory bail. Additional reports can be submitted later as part of the ongoing investigation.
The case involved allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, SC/ST Act and POCSO Act. The accused had been arrested and was in judicial custody when he sought default bail, arguing that the investigation was incomplete due to missing technical reports. His plea had earlier been rejected by a special POCSO court.
Upholding that decision, the High Court reiterated that default bail is not a right in cases where the charge sheet has been filed within the stipulated period, even if certain aspects of the investigation remain pending.
The ruling is expected to have wider implications for similar cases, reinforcing that procedural compliance with timelines takes precedence over completeness of evidence at the filing stage.