The Madhya Pradesh High Court has delivered a critical clarification on the right to default bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, emphasizing that procedural irregularities in court records cannot override statutory rights to personal liberty. In a case where the trial court denied bail on the basis of an unverified entry suggesting a supplementary charge sheet had been filed, the High Court set aside the order and mandated an independent verification of the actual record.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The accused, Bablu alias Arvind Dubey, was arrested in connection with a criminal case registered at Police Station Batiyagarh, District Damoh. He filed an application for default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arguing that no charge sheet had been filed within the statutory 90-day period. The trial court rejected the application, relying on an order sheet entry indicating that a supplementary charge sheet had been filed on 05.07.2017.
Procedural History
- 2017: FIR registered; accused arrested
- 05.07.2017: Alleged filing of supplementary charge sheet against co-accused Vinay Dubey
- 2025: Accused filed application for default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS
- 17.06.2025: Judicial Magistrate First Class rejected bail application, citing alleged filing of charge sheet
- 2025: Criminal Revision filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
Relief Sought
The accused sought release on default bail, asserting that the prosecution had failed to file a charge sheet within the statutory period, thereby triggering his right under Section 187(3) BNSS.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the denial of default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 can be justified solely on the basis of an unverified, potentially erroneous entry in the court’s remand order sheet, when no physical or documentary evidence of the charge sheet’s filing against the accused is produced.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner’s senior counsel argued that the prosecution had failed to produce any authenticated copy of the supplementary charge sheet filed on 05.07.2017. He demonstrated through exhaustive review of the co-accused’s appeal records that no such document existed in the case diary. He relied on the principle that default bail is a statutory right, not a discretionary privilege, and that any denial must be grounded in concrete, verifiable evidence.
For the Respondent/State
The Government Advocate conceded that after a two-day review of the record, no physical or digital copy of the charge sheet against the accused could be located. He did not dispute the absence of documentation but argued that the order sheet entry, even if clerical, should be presumed valid unless disproven beyond doubt.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that order sheets are often prepared by court staff using standardized formats and are not personally drafted by the presiding magistrate. As such, they are inherently susceptible to inadvertent clerical errors. The Court emphasized that the right to default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS is sacrosanct and cannot be defeated by speculative or unverified entries.
"The burden to prove that a charge sheet was actually filed lies squarely on the prosecution. An uncorroborated entry in an order sheet, especially one susceptible to clerical error, cannot substitute for a duly filed and authenticated charge sheet."
The Court further noted that the trial court had failed to independently verify the existence of the charge sheet, instead relying on a potentially erroneous record. This constituted a failure to discharge the duty to protect personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that the prosecution’s failure to produce the charge sheet, despite ample opportunity, rendered the denial of bail legally unsustainable.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The High Court set aside the trial court’s order denying default bail and held that the right to default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS cannot be denied on the basis of unverified order sheet entries. The matter was remanded for a fresh hearing with strict directions to verify the actual filing of the charge sheet.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Default Bail Is Not Subject To Paperwork Presumptions
- Practitioners must insist that the prosecution produce the original, stamped, and signed charge sheet before any denial of default bail
- Courts must reject arguments based solely on order sheet entries without independent verification
- A failure to produce the charge sheet within the statutory period automatically triggers the right to bail
Clerical Errors Cannot Override Statutory Rights
- Order sheets are administrative records, not conclusive evidence of procedural compliance
- Any discrepancy between order sheets and case diaries must be resolved in favor of the accused
- Courts must treat the absence of a charge sheet as a prima facie violation of Section 187(3) BNSS unless the prosecution proves otherwise
Verification Must Be Active, Not Passive
- Trial courts must actively seek case diaries and consult investigating officers when records are unclear
- Photocopies of charge sheets must be annexed and highlighted in the order
- Failure to conduct due verification renders the bail order liable to be set aside on revision
