Court Dismisses Criminal Revision
The default bail after absconding accused arrest issue came before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, which dismissed a criminal revision filed by Bablu alias Arvind Dubey. The Court ruled that an accused cannot claim default bail if the investigating agency had already filed a chargesheet during his abscondence and did not file a fresh supplementary chargesheet after his later arrest.
Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal delivered the order on July 1, 2026, in Criminal Revision No. 1443 of 2026, Bablu alias Arvind Dubey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. The revision challenged the order dated February 23, 2026, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Hata, District Damoh. The JMFC had rejected the petitioner’s application for default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Petitioner Claimed No Supplementary Chargesheet Was Filed
Senior counsel Shri Sankalp Kochar and Shri Siddhant Kochar argued that the petitioner had remained absconding while the police filed a chargesheet against the co-accused on July 5, 2017.
Later, the trial court convicted the co-accused under Section 307 IPC in Sessions Trial No. 365/2012. The court sentenced them to five years of rigorous imprisonment through its judgment dated March 5, 2022.
Police arrested the petitioner on March 18, 2025, and produced him before the JMFC. After obtaining remand, the prosecution repeatedly sought time to file a supplementary chargesheet. However, according to the petitioner, it never filed one despite receiving several opportunities.
Petitioner Relied on Default Bail Principles
The petitioner argued that once the investigating agency obtained his remand, it became necessary to submit a supplementary chargesheet. Since the prosecution failed to do so, he claimed he had earned the statutory right to default bail.
He also contended that the document dated July 5, 2017, although titled “Supplementary Challan/Charge-sheet,” was merely a forwarding letter. Therefore, it could not qualify as a valid supplementary chargesheet under Section 173 CrPC or Section 193 BNSS.
To support his arguments, the petitioner relied on Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI, CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan, Pankaj v. State of Maharashtra, Sunil Vitthal Wagh v. State of Maharashtra, and Shaikh Hussain alias Lakhan Shaikh Ibrahim v. State of Maharashtra.
State Opposed the Revision
Panel Lawyer Shri Ritesh Sharma appeared for the State and opposed the revision.
He argued that investigators had already filed a chargesheet against the petitioner on July 5, 2017, while he remained absconding. According to the State, only the petitioner’s arrest remained pending. Therefore, the investigating agency had no legal obligation to file another supplementary chargesheet after taking him into custody.
The prosecution also relied on a letter dated May 29, 2025, issued by Sub-Inspector Shesh Kumar Dubey of Police Station Batiyagarh.
High Court Examined the Earlier Chargesheets
The High Court carefully examined the original record.
It found that investigators filed the first chargesheet on December 22, 2012. At that stage, three accused had been arrested, while Bablu, Vinay, and Rajendra remained absconding. The police also informed the trial court that investigation against the absconding accused continued under Section 173(8) CrPC.
After Rajendra’s arrest, investigators submitted a supplementary chargesheet on March 9, 2015.
Later, they filed another supplementary chargesheet dated July 1, 2017. That document recorded Vinay Dubey’s arrest and stated that Bablu alias Arvind Dubey had committed offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 307 IPC along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
According to the same document, Bablu had remained absconding since the incident. It also recorded that investigators had completed the investigation and prepared a chargesheet against him under Section 299 CrPC because only his arrest remained pending.
Court Relied on Supreme Court Judgments
While deciding the issue, the High Court relied on several Supreme Court decisions.
First, it referred to Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI, where the Supreme Court held that investigators need not wait for the arrest of an absconding accused before filing a chargesheet if sufficient evidence already exists.
The Bench also relied on Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat regarding further investigation and supplementary chargesheets. In addition, it considered CBI v. Rathin Dandapat, National Investigation Agency v. Gurwinder Singh alias Baba, and Majahar Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
No Fresh Supplementary Chargesheet Required
After reviewing the record, the High Court found that investigators had validly filed the supplementary chargesheet dated July 1, 2017, against the petitioner during his abscondence.
Next, the Bench rejected the petitioner’s argument that no chargesheet existed against him. It clarified that although the trial court’s order dated July 5, 2017, specifically mentioned only co-accused Vinay, that omission did not invalidate the chargesheet filed against Bablu.
Referring to Criminal Revision No. 4625/2025, the Court recalled that it had earlier directed the trial court to verify whether investigators had filed a chargesheet against Bablu on July 5, 2017. The JMFC later confirmed that they had.
Right to Default Bail Extinguished
Based on the record, the High Court concluded that investigators had completed the investigation once they filed the chargesheet on July 1, 2017.
Later requests by the investigating agency only related to further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. Those requests did not create a legal duty to submit another supplementary chargesheet.
As a result, the Court held that the law does not require investigators to file a fresh supplementary chargesheet after arresting an accused if they had already filed one during the accused’s abscondence.
Therefore, the default bail after absconding accused arrest claim could not succeed. The Court ruled that the petitioner’s statutory right to default bail under Section 167 CrPC and Section 187 BNSS had already ended when investigators filed the earlier chargesheet.
Revision Dismissed
Finding no legal error in the JMFC’s order dated February 23, 2026, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision.
Finally, the Court directed the Registry to return the trial court records immediately. It also ordered that all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
