The Madhya Pradesh High Court, sitting at its Jabalpur bench, recently addressed the question whether an accused who had been absconding at the time of filing a chargesheet can later claim default bail on the ground that the investigating agency failed to file a supplementary chargesheet after his arrest. The matter arose in the criminal revision petition titled Bablu @ Arvind Dubey v State of Madhya Pradesh, reported as [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 252].
The bench, presided over by Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal, examined the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, particularly Section 187(3), which governs the grant of default bail when the investigation is not completed within the prescribed period. The Court observed that the legislative intent behind Section 187(3) is to protect personal liberty by preventing indefinite incarceration where the State has not concluded its investigation and filed a chargesheet within the stipulated time.
In the present case, the prosecution had filed a chargesheet against the accused while he was still absconding. The chargesheet contained the allegations, the evidence collected up to that point, and the list of witnesses. After the accused’s subsequent arrest, the investigating agency did not file a supplementary chargesheet, contending that the initial chargesheet already satisfied the requirement of completing the investigation for the purpose of default bail. The accused, however, argued that his arrest necessitated a fresh or supplementary chargesheet, and that the failure to do so entitled him to default bail under Section 187(3).
Justice Bansal, after considering the arguments, held that the filing of a chargesheet while the accused was absconding amounted to compliance with the investigative requirement contemplated by the statute. The Court reasoned that the purpose of the provision is to ensure that the investigation is not left in a state of inertia; once a chargesheet is filed, the investigation is deemed to have reached a stage where the accused can be called upon to defend himself. The fact the trial. Consequently, the mere fact of arrest does not revive the obligation to file a supplementary chargesheet solely to trigger the default bail provision.
The bench further noted that allowing a claim of default bail in such circumstances would undermine the efficacy of the criminal process. It would permit an accused who had evaded arrest to benefit from a procedural lapse that is, in reality, a consequence of his own conduct. The Court emphasized that the law does not intend to reward absconding by granting a windfall benefit of bail merely because the accused later appears before the court.
In applying the principle to the facts, the Court found that the investigating agency had acted diligently by filing the chargesheet during the period of abscondence. The absence of a supplementary chargesheet post‑arrest did not render the investigation incomplete for the purposes of Section 187(3). Accordingly, the petition for default bail was dismissed, and the accused remained in custody pending trial.
The decision underscores the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s interpretation that the filing of a chargesheet, irrespective of the accused’s physical presence at that moment, satisfies the investigative benchmark required to defeat a claim of default bail. It also clarifies that the obligation to file a supplementary chargesheet arises only when no chargesheet has been filed prior to arrest, or when the initial chargesheet is found to be deficient or incomplete in a manner that necessitates further investigation. The ruling provides guidance to lower courts and investigating agencies on the interplay between absconding, chargesheet filing, and the right to default bail under the new criminal code.