Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bablu Alias Arvind Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2026
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48130
1 CRR No.1443-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 1ST OF JULY, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1443 of 2026
BABLU ALIAS ARVIND DUBEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Kochar and Shri Siddhant Kochar, Advocates for petitioner.
Shri Ritesh Sharma, Panel Lawyer for respondent-State.
ORDER
This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner/accused
challenging the order dtd. 23.02.2026 passed by Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Hata, District Damoh in RCT No. 355/2012 whereby the JMFC has
dismissed petitioner’s application dtd. 17.06.2025 filed for grant of default
bail under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(in short ‘BNSS’).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner
was absconding, therefore, the police submitted challan/charge-sheet
against other co-accused on 05.07.2017 and upon conclusion of trial the
judgment was passed on 05.03.2022 in S.T. No. 365/2012 whereby co-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 03-07-2026
19:28:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48130
2 CRR No.1443-2026
accused Rajendra and Vinay were convicted under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC‘) and were sentenced for Rigorous
imprisonment of 5 years, whereas co-accused Bhupendra @ Bhupa,
Sudama and Kailash were convicted under Section 307 IPC and were
sentenced for Rigorous imprisonment of 5 years. He submits that thereafter
the petitioner was arrested and produced before the Court/JMFC on
18.03.2025, and upon a request made by the respondent/State, the remand
was ordered by the court on 18.03.2025 and thereafter on so many
occasions prayer was made on behalf of the respondent/State to file
supplementary charge sheet, which is also clear from the order sheet dtd.
06.08.2025 drawn by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hata, District Damoh
in S.T. No.16/2025. He also submits that in spite of granting several
opportunities, the respondent/State has not filed supplementary
challan/charge sheet so far and the JMFC while passing the impugned
order and while deciding the application dtd. 17.06.2025, has not taken
care of the submissions/ground no. 6 & 7 taken in the application and the
effect of non-filing of supplementary charge sheet, especially in the light
of decisions in the case of Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI, (2007) 8 SCC 770;
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kapil Wadhawan And Another, (2024)
3 SCC 734; Pankaj s/o Sundarlal Yadav v. The State of Maharashtra,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 03-07-2026
19:28:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48130
3 CRR No.1443-2026
through P.S.O., P.S. Gondia And Anr., 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 16425 =
2016 Supreme (Bom) 2034; Sunil Vitthal Wagh v. State of Maharashtra
through Senior Inspector Pandharpur- City Police Station, 2024 Supreme
(Online) (Bom) 6865 = (2025) 2 MhLJ (Cri) 164 and in the case of
Shaikh Hussain alias Lakhan Shaikh Ibrahim and another v. State of
Maharashtra given by Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in Criminal
Application (APL) No. 839 of 2017. He also submits that after seeking
remand of the petitioner/accused and after granting so many opportunities
to the respondent/State, it was required to file supplementary
challan/charge sheet necessarily and since it was not filed, therefore, the
petitioner was entitled for default bail. He further submits that the
document filed on 05.07.2017, though bearing the heading
“Supplementary Challan/Charge-sheet”, cannot be treated as
Supplementary charge-sheet in the eyes of law, as it is merely in the nature
of a letter and is not in the format of a final report as contemplated under
Section 173 CrPC/Section 193 BNSS. With these submissions, he prays
for allowing the criminal revision.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State supports the
impugned order on the ground that since challan was filed on 05.07.2017,
although in abscondence of the present petitioner-Bablu and only the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 03-07-2026
19:28:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48130
4 CRR No.1443-2026
petitioner was required to be arrested, therefore, there is no necessity to file
supplementary challan/charge sheet especially in the light of letter dtd.
29.05.2025 written by Sub-Inspector-Shesh Kumar Dubey, Police Station-
Batiyagarh. With these submissions, he prays for dismissal of the criminal
revision.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Perusal of original record shows that originally, the first charge-
sheet was filed on 22.12.2012, in which, out of six accused, three were
shown as arrested accused, whereas the remaining three accused, namely,
Bablu, Vinay and Rajendra, were shown as absconding. It was further
mentioned therein that investigation in respect of the absconding accused
persons was continuing/ongoing under Section 173(8) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’). Thereafter, upon the arrest
of accused Rajendra, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed on
09.03.2015 against the accused Rajendra. Subsequently, another
supplementary charge-sheet dtd. 01.07.2017 was filed, wherein the Police
stated that, the accused Vinay Dubey is arrested and in custody of court,
against whom a supplementary challan is presented before the court and in
the present case, it has been duly established that accused Bablu @ Arvind,
son of Late Krishna Dubey, aged 29 years, resident of Village Tindua,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 03-07-2026
19:28:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48130
5 CRR No.1443-2026
Police Station Batiyagarh, committed offences punishable under Sections
147, 148, 149 and 307 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act,
1959. However, his arrest is yet to be effected, as he has been absconding
since the date of the incident. Every possible effort has been made to
apprehend the accused, but his arrest could not be secured, nor is there any
likelihood of his arrest in the near future. Accordingly, a charge-sheet
against the absconding accused, Bablu @ Arvind, has been prepared under
Section 299 of the Cr.P.C. and that only his arrest remained, the
investigation having already been completed.
6. After the arrest of the present accused Bablu, the investigation
officer sought permission from the Court to record his custodial statements
and the same was granted on 06.08.2025 and, on various occasions, sought
time for filing a supplementary charge-sheet which is clear from order
sheet dtd. 06.08.2025 drawn by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hata,
District Damoh in S.T. No.16/2025, however, failed to file any
supplementary charge-sheet after the arrest of accused Bablu @ Arvind
Dubey.
7. In the aforesaid factual background, the question that arises for
consideration is as follows:
Whether where a charge-sheet has already been filed during the
abscondence of an accused, the filing of a supplementary charge-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 03-07-2026
19:28:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48130
6 CRR No.1443-2026
sheet upon his subsequent arrest is mandatory or it is only discretion
of an investigating agency and if such a supplementary charge-sheet
is not filed within a period of 60 or 90 days , as the case may be,
prescribed under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(corresponding to Section 187 of the BNSS), whether the accused
becomes entitled to statutory/default bail ?
8. In the case of Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI, (2007) 8 SCC 770, the
Hon’ble Supreme court held as under:
“19. A charge-sheet is a final report within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 173
of the Code. It is filed so as to enable the court concerned to apply its mind as to whether
cognizance of the offence thereupon should be taken or not. The report is ordinarily filed
in the form prescribed therefor. One of the requirements for submission of a police report
is whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom. In some
cases, the accused having not been arrested, the investigation against him may not be
complete. There may not be sufficient material for arriving at a decision that the
absconding accused is also a person by whom the offence appears to have been committed.
If the investigating officer finds sufficient evidence even against such an accused who
had been absconding, in our opinion, law does not require that filing of the charge-
sheet must await the arrest of the accused.
….. ….. …… ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ……
36. In Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar [(2000) 10 SCC 438 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 636] this Court
held: (SCC p. 446, para 11)
“11. There cannot be any manner of doubt that the remand and the custody referred to in
the first proviso to the above sub-section are different from detention in custody under
Section 167. While remand under the former relates to a stage after cognizance and can
only be to judicial custody, detention under the latter relates to the stage of investigation
and can initially be either in police custody or judicial custody. Since, however, even after
cognizance is taken of an offence the police has a power to investigate into it further,
which can be exercised only in accordance with Chapter XII, we see no reason whatsoever
why the provisions of Section 167 thereof would not apply to a person who comes to be
later arrested by the police in course of such investigation. If Section 309(2) is to be
interpreted–as has been interpreted by the Bombay High Court in Mansuri [Mohd. Ahmed
Yasin Mansuri v. State of Maharashtra, 1994 Cri LJ 1854 (Bom)] –to mean that after the
court takes cognizance of an offence it cannot exercise its power of detention in police
custody under Section 167 of the Code, the investigating agency would be deprived of an
opportunity to interrogate a person arrested during further investigation, even if it can on
production of sufficient materials, convince the court that his detention in its (police)
custody was essential for that purpose. We are therefore of the opinion that the words
‘accused if in custody’ appearing in Section 309(2) refer and relate to an accused who was
before the court when cognizance was taken or when enquiry or trial was being held in
respect of him and not to an accused who is subsequently arrested in course of further
investigation. So far as the accused in the first category is concerned he can be remanded
to judicial custody only in view of Section 309(2), but he who comes under the second
category will be governed by Section 167 so long as further investigation continues. That
necessarily means that in respect of the latter the court which had taken cognizance of the
offence may exercise its power to detain him in police custody, subject to the fulfilment of
the requirements and the limitation of Section 167.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 03-07-2026
19:28:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48130
7 CRR No.1443-2026
37. We had noticed the dicta of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court. At this
juncture, we may notice the dicta laid down by this Court in Sanjay Dutt v. State
(II) [(1994) 5 SCC 410 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1433] wherein it was held: [SCC p. 444, para
53(2)(b)]
“53. (2)(b) The ‘indefeasible right’ of the accused to be released on bail in accordance
with Section 20(4)(bb) of the TADA Act read with Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in default of completion of the investigation and filing of the challan within the
time allowed, as held in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur [Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of
Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1087] is a right which enures to, and is
enforceable by the accused only from the time of default till the filing of the challan and it
does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan being filed. If the accused applies for
bail under this provision on expiry of the period of 180 days or the extended period, as the
case may be, then he has to be released on bail forthwith. The accused, so released on bail
may be arrested and committed to custody according to the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The right of the accused to be released on bail after filing of the
challan, notwithstanding the default in filing it within the time allowed, is governed from
the time of filing of the challan only by the provisions relating to the grant of bail
applicable at that stage.”
38. It is a well-settled principle of interpretation of statute that it is to be read in its entirety.
Construction of a statute should be made in a manner so as to give effect to all the
provisions thereof. Remand of an accused is contemplated by Parliament at two stages;
pre-cognizance and post-cognizance. Even in the same case, depending upon the nature of
charge-sheet filed by the investigating officer in terms of Section 173 of the Code, a
cognizance may be taken as against the person against whom an offence is said to have
been made out and against whom no such offence has been made out even when
investigation is pending. So long a charge-sheet is not filed within the meaning of sub-
section (2) of Section 173 of the Code, investigation remains pending. It, however, does
not preclude an investigating officer, as noticed hereinbefore, to carry on further
investigation despite filing of a police report, in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 173 of
the Code.
39. The statutory scheme does not lead to a conclusion in regard to an investigation leading
to filing of final form under sub-section (2) of Section 173 and further investigation
contemplated under sub-section (8) thereof. Whereas only when a charge-sheet is not
filed and investigation is kept pending, benefit of proviso appended to sub-section (2)
of Section 167 of the Code would be available to an offender; once, however, a
charge-sheet is filed, the said right ceases. Such a right does not revive only because a
further investigation remains pending within the meaning of sub-section (8) of
Section 173 of the Code.”
9. In the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat,
(2019) 17 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Apex court held as under:
“33. In Samaj Parivartan Samudaya [Samaj Parivartan Samudaya v. State of Karnataka,
(2012) 7 SCC 407 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 365] , a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while
dealing with illegal mining in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, issued directions to CBI to
investigate the entire matter (despite private complaints already pending and being
investigated by one or other competent court or investigation agency), as a Central
Empowered Committee Report disclosed fresh facts as to illegal mining in these States. In
a review of the machinery of criminal investigations under CrPC, this Court held : (SCC
pp. 421-23, paras 27, 29-31 & 37)
“27. Once the investigation is conducted in accordance with the provisions of
CrPC, a police officer is bound to file a report before the court of competent jurisdiction,
as contemplated under Section 173 CrPC, upon which the Magistrate can proceed to trySignature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 03-07-2026
19:28:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:481308 CRR No.1443-2026
the offence, if the same were triable by such court or commit the case to the Court of
Session. It is significant to note that the provisions of Section 173(8) CrPC open with
non obstante language that nothing in the provisions of Sections 173(1) to 173(7) shall
be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report
under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate. Thus, under Section
173(8), where charge-sheet has been filed, that court also enjoys the jurisdiction to
direct further investigation into the offence. (Ref. Hemant Dhasmana v. CBI [Hemant
Dhasmana v. CBI, (2001) 7 SCC 536 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1280] .) This power cannot have
any inhibition including such requirement as being obliged to hear the accused before any
such direction is made.
* * *
29. While the trial court does not have inherent powers like those of the High
Court under Section 482 CrPC or the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India, such that it may order for complete reinvestigation or fresh investigation of a case
before it, however, it has substantial powers in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under
Sections 311 and 391 CrPC. In cases where cognizance has been taken and where a
substantial portion of investigation/trial has already been completed and where a direction
for further examination would have the effect of delaying the trial, if the trial court is of the
opinion that the case has been made out for alteration of charge, etc. it may exercise such
powers without directing further investigation. (Ref. Sasi Thomas v. State [Sasi
Thomas v. State, (2006) 12 SCC 421 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 72] .)
30. Still in another case, taking the aid of the doctrine of implied power, this Court
has also stated that an express grant of statutory power carries with it, by necessary
implication, the authority to use all reasonable means to make such statutory power
effective. Therefore, absence of statutory provision empowering the Magistrate to direct
registration of an FIR would not be of any consequence and the Magistrate would
nevertheless be competent to direct registration of an FIR. (Ref. Sakiri Vasu v. State of
U.P. [Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440] )
31. Thus, CrPC leaves clear scope for conducting of further inquiry and filing
of a supplementary charge-sheet, if necessary, with such additional facts and evidence
as may be collected by the investigating officer in terms of sub-sections (2) to (6) of
Section 173 CrPC to the court. To put it aptly, further investigation by the
investigating agency, after presentation of a challan (charge-sheet in terms of Section
173 CrPC) is permissible in any case impliedly but in no event is impermissible.
* * *
37. We may notice that the investigation of a case or filing of charge-sheet in a case
does not by itself bring the absolute end to exercise of power by the investigating agency
or by the court. Sometimes and particularly in the matters of the present kind, the
investigating agency has to keep its options open to continue with the investigation, as
certain other relevant facts, incriminating materials and even persons, other than the
persons stated in the FIR as accused, might be involved in the commission of the crime.
The basic purpose of an investigation is to bring out the truth by conducting fair and proper
investigation, in accordance with law and ensure that the guilty are punished.”
10. Further in the case of CBI v. Rathin Dandapat, (2016) 1 SCC 507,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“12. The case of Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI [(2007) 8 SCC 770 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 36] ,
which is relied upon by the High Court, relates to granting of bail under Section 167(2)
CrPC. In the said case, the absconder-accused (Dinesh Dalmia) after his arrest was
produced before the Magistrate, and on the request of CBI, police custody was granted onSignature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 03-07-2026
19:28:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:481309 CRR No.1443-2026
14-2-2006 till 24-2-2006, whereafter on another application further police custody was
granted till 8-3-2006. The said accused was remanded to judicial custody, and the
accused sought statutory bail under sub-section (2) of Section 167 CrPC as no charge-
sheet was filed against him by CBI within sixty days of his arrest. The Magistrate
rejected the application for statutory bail on the ground that it was a case of further
investigation after filing of the charge-sheet, and the remand of the accused to
judicial custody was under Section 309 CrPC, after police remand came to an end,
granted under Section 167(2) CrPC. The High Court upheld the said order and this
Court also affirmed the view taken by the High Court.
13. In view of the above facts, in the present case, in our opinion, the High Court is not
justified on the basis of Dinesh Dalmia [(2007) 8 SCC 770 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 36] in
upholding the refusal of remand in police custody by the Magistrate, on the ground that the
accused stood in custody after his arrest under Section 309 CrPC. We have already noted
above the principle of law laid down by the three-Judge Bench of this Court
in State v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar [(2000) 10 SCC 438 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 636] that police
remand can be sought under Section 167(2) CrPC in respect of an accused arrested at the
stage of further investigation, if the interrogation is needed by the investigating agency.
This Court has further clarified in the said case that the expression “accused if in custody”
in Section 309(2) CrPC does not include the accused who is arrested on further
investigation before supplementary charge-sheet is filed.”
11. Undisputedly, in the first charge-sheet filed on 22.12.2012 the
name of the petitioner-Bablu is shown as absconded accused with ‘red
ink’. Subsequently, a supplementary chargesheet was filed against the
accused Rajendra on 09.03.2015 and finally another supplementary
charge-sheet dtd. 01.07.2017 was filed, in which it is clearly mentioned by
investigating officer that against the petitioner-Bablu, arrest is only
remained and there is no possibility of arrest of accused- Bablu in near
future, so a challan is prepared against Bablu in abscondence under Section
299 CrPC. It is clear from this supplementary challan dtd. 01.07.2017,
which is available on record, that supplementary challan against the
petitioner-Bablu, filed during his abscondence was validly filed. Although
in the charge-sheets filed on earlier occasions i.e. on 22.12.2012 and
09.03.2015, the police kept the investigation open under 173(8) CrPC but
on 05.07.2017 the police has filed the supplementary charge-sheet against
the petitioner-Bablu and Vinay thereby concluding the investigation,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 03-07-2026
19:28:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48130
10 CRR No.1443-2026
which were kept open vide previous charge-sheets dtd.22.12.2012 and
09.03.2015.
12. In the similar facts and circumstances, a Division Bench of High
Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of National Investigation Agency
v. Gurwinder Singh @ Baba, 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1659 = 2024 1
RCR(Cri) 277, held as under:
“7. A reading of the above extracted paragraphs, do imminently reveal, that the filing
of a charge-sheet, even against an absconding accused, does thereby tantamount to
the investigation(s), in respect of the relevant FIR, thus becoming concluded, but it is
also expostulated thereins that thereby, the investigating officer concerned, is not
precluded, to carry further investigation(s), thus in terms of Sub Section (8) of
Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.
8. As a sequel to the above made conclusions, it became ultimately concluded in
paragraph No. 29, of the verdict (supra), that only, when a charge-sheet is not filed, and the
investigation(s), are pending, thereupon, only the benefit of the proviso appended, to Sub
Section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C., thus would be available to an offender, but when a
charge-sheet is filed rather the said right ceases.
9. Furthermore, it is also expostulated thereins, that the said right, does not revive only
because further investigation(s) remain pending, thus within the meaning of Sub Section
(8) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.
10. The result of the above made expostulations, in verdict (supra) rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court, insofar as they relate, to the facts of the instant case, are that since on
16.12.2021, a charge-sheet became filed against the absconding accused, thus the
availment of the statutory privilege of further investigation(s), by the investigating officer,
did not enable the private respondent concerned, to claim the benefit of default bail, as
contemplated in Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C., nor the learned trial Judge concerned, was
thereby well enabled to grant, the said statutory benefit to the private respondent.
11. Furthermore, the date of the filing of the charge-sheet i.e. 16.12.2021, thus is the
relevant date for computing, whether the private respondent, is entitled to become
endowed with the benefit of default bail rather in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.,
irrespective of his remaining under absconsion.
12. Moreover, when he became arrested on 25.08.2022 Consequently, when the
investigation(s) were closed on the filing of a charge-sheet against the absconding
respondent. Therefore, from the said date, the period of 90 days is to be counted but
irrespective of the accused being arrested subsequently, given his earlier to his becoming
arrested, rather remaining under absconsion.
13. Moreover, the availment of any statutory privilege by the investigating officer
concerned, thus to carry further investigation(s), did not confer, upon the private
respondent, any privilege, that thereby the investigation(s), had not ceased nor could he
claim a benefit, that thereby there was revival of the investigation(s).”
13. In the case of Majahar Khan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
through Police station hatta district damoh in MCRC No. 25878 of
2023 which is affirmed upto the Hon’ble Supreme court vide SLP (Crl.)
6566/2024 dtd. 06.05.2024, a coordinate bench of this court held as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 03-07-2026
19:28:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48130
11 CRR No.1443-2026
“5. It is not disputed at the Bar that charge sheet was filed against various co-accused
including petitioner during period of his absconsion on 12.06.2019. The supplementary
charge sheet filed after arrest of petitioner was solely based on evidence and material
collected during custodial interrogation of petitioner.
5.1 Since charge sheet had originally been filed as early as on 12.06.2019 during state
of absconsion of petitioner, it goes without saying that benefit of default bail cannot
be made available to petitioner in the given facts and circumstances of the case.”
14. In the present case it is clear that in charge-sheet filed on
22.12.2012 the name of accused (Bablu) shown as absconding and later on
a supplementary chargesheet was filed against the accused by police
invoking S.299 CrPC on 05.07.2017, so the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that no charge-sheet was filed against petitioner
even after expiry of 90 days of arrest is unsustainable as document
dtd.01.07.2017 bearing heading supplementary Challan is available on
record and further, by order dated 05.07.2017, the Trial Court took on
record the charge-sheet filed on 05.07.2017. It is true that, in the operative
portion of the order dated 05.07.2017, the Trial Court specifically referred
only to the name of co-accused Vinay. However, in my considered opinion
the mere omission to mention the name of accused Bablu in the said order
does not lead to the conclusion that no supplementary charge-sheet was
filed against him. Once the supplementary charge-sheet dtd.01.07.2017
forms part of the record of the Trial Court, it cannot be held that no
supplementary charge-sheet was filed against accused Bablu. The omission
of the Trial Court to specifically refer to the name of accused-Bablu in the
order dtd. 05.07.2017 does not detract from the existence or filing of the
supplementary charge-sheet against him.
15. It is pertinent to note that, on an earlier occasion, a Criminal
Revision No. 4625/2025 was preferred before this Court, wherein vide
order dtd. 23.01.2026 the matter was remanded to the learned Trial Court
for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether a charge-sheet had been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 03-07-2026
19:28:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48130
12 CRR No.1443-2026
filed against the accused, Bablu @ Arvind Dubey, on 05.07.2017. Pursuant
to the said remand, the learned JMFC, by order dtd. 23.02.2026, recorded a
categorical finding, upon verification of the record, that the charge-sheet
against the said accused had been filed on 05.07.2017. In the present
proceedings also, this Court called for the original record of the Court
below to verify the said factual aspect. Upon perusal of the original record,
it is found that the charge-sheet dated 01.07.2017 is available on record.
16. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that even after arrest the police sought time to file supplementary charge-
sheet and later on failed to file any supplementary chargesheet, thereby,
making accused entitled to default/statutory bail is also unsustainable in
the light of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Dinesh
Dalmia (supra); Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya (supra) and Rathin
Dandapat (supra) as once the charge-sheet dtd. 01.07.2017 was filed the
investigation held to be concluded and although the Investigating Agency
sought time on several occasions to file a supplementary charge-sheet after
the arrest of the petitioner, however, this act of seeking time to file
supplementary charge-sheet after his arrest is merely a part of further
investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is
well settled that further investigation may continue even after the filing of
the charge-sheet under Section 173(2) CrPC. Such further investigation is
discretionary in nature, ordinarily a supplementary charge-sheet is filed
after the arrest of accused but there is no statutory mandate requiring the
Investigating Agency to invariably file a supplementary charge-sheet upon
the arrest of an accused against whom a charge-sheet had already been
filed in abscondence. Therefore, merely because the Investigating Agency
sought time to conduct further investigation or did not file a supplementary
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 03-07-2026
19:28:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48130
13 CRR No.1443-2026
charge-sheet after the arrest of the petitioner, it cannot be inferred that the
investigation remained incomplete making accused entitled for default
bail. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that where a charge-sheet has
already been filed against an accused during his abscondence, it is not
mandatory for the Investigating Agency to further file a supplementary
charge-sheet after his subsequent arrest.
17. In the instant case it is established that a charge-sheet was filed
against the accused during his abscondence on 05.07.2017, thereby, the
indefeasible right of accused to default bail provided under S.167
CrPC/S.187 BNSS extinguished on filing of this charge sheet dtd.
01.07.2017.
18. In view of the aforesaid, in my considered opinion, the impugned
order dtd. 23.02.2026 rejecting default bail to the petitioner-Bablu does not
suffer from any illegality. The petitioner is not entitled for grant of default
/statutory bail provided under Section 167 CrPC/ 187 BNSS. The decisions
relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Dinesh
Dalmia (supra); Kapil Wadhawan (supra); Pankaj (supra); Sunil Vitthal
(supra) and Shaikh Hussain (supra) do not provide any help to the
petitioner as in the case of Dinesh Dalmia (supra) and Kapil Wadhawan
(supra) the Hon’ble Apex court held the that benefit of default bail is
available to the accused only when the charge-sheet is not filed and
investigation is kept pending against the accused and in the instant case the
police has filed charge-sheet during abscondence and the act of police
seeking time to file supplementary charge-sheet constitute the case of
further investigation under S. 173(8) CrPC. The decisions of Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay in the cases of Pankaj (supra); Sunil Vitthal (supra) and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 03-07-2026
19:28:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48130
14 CRR No.1443-2026
Shaikh Hussain (supra) are distinguishable on facts and also do not
provide any help to the petitioner.
19. As a result of the aforesaid, this criminal revision is dismissed.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
21. Registry is directed to send back the record of the Court below
immediately.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
KPS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 03-07-2026
19:28:27
