Accused Cannot Claim Default Bail By Treating Police Report As Incomplete For Want Of CCTV Or Call Records: Madras High Court

The Court dismissed a revision challenging the rejection of statutory bail in a narcotics case and directed the Special Court to conclude the trial within two months.

The Court was hearing a revision under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against an order dismissing an application for statutory bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS. The applicant contended that the police report was incomplete because CCTV footage and the call-detail and subscriber records of a mobile phone had not accompanied it.

A Bench of Justice B. Murugesan observed: “As discussed earlier, the revision petitioner being the accused can have no say as regards the manner and method of investigation. Therefore, the revision petitioner cannot plead that without such necessary materials, namely, the CCTV footage concerned and CDR/CAF details of the mobile phone concerned, the police report filed in this case is an ‘incomplete police report’, entitling him to get statutory bail.”

Advocate P. Kritika Kamal appeared for the petitioner. Special Public Prosecutor Arul Vadivel represented the Narcotics Control Bureau.

Background

The Narcotics Control Bureau alleged that the petitioner conspired with another person and possessed 950 grams of methamphetamine. He was prosecuted under Sections 22(c), 27A, 28 and 29 read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The police report was filed within the statutory period, and the Special Court took cognizance. The petitioner nevertheless sought statutory bail, contending that the report was incomplete.

He claimed that he had been intercepted earlier than the alleged recovery and that toll-plaza CCTV footage could disprove the prosecution's version. He submitted that retrieval of the footage remained pending and that the call-detail records and customer-application-form details of the mobile phone allegedly used in the conspiracy were also awaited.

The NCB argued that the report satisfied the statutory requirements and contained sufficient material for cognizance. It submitted that the absence of the forensic report concerning the CCTV footage and the mobile-phone records did not render either the investigation or the report incomplete.

Court's Observations

Police Report Need Not Contain Complete Evidence

The Court examined Sections 190 and 193 of the BNSS. It held that a positive police report must be accompanied by the materials on which the investigating officer proposes to rely, but those materials need only disclose sufficient evidence or a reasonable ground of suspicion enabling the court to take cognizance.

It observed: “In other words, while forwarding a positive police report, the materials forwarded along with such positive police report need not be ‘complete evidence’ arising out of ‘complete investigation’ but need to be the materials bringing sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion. Therefore, if a positive police report with such materials bringing sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion is forwarded by the investigating police officer, enabling the Magistrate to take cognizance thereon, it could be held or said to be a strict compliance of S.193(3) r/w S.193(6) r/w S.190 BNSS (S.173(2) r/w 173(5) r/w S.170 CrPC). Therefore, such police report with such materials as aforesaid culminating from a core investigation, and enabling the Magistrate to take cognizance thereon, in the opinion of this court, can be said to be a complete police report which cannot be challenged by the accused on the ground that the investigating police officer ought to have collected some other materials being better than those already collected.”

The Court added that Section 193(9) expressly permits further investigation and supplementary reports. A report cannot therefore be treated as incomplete merely because further evidence may subsequently be collected.

Timely Filing Extinguished Right To Default Bail

The Court noted that the broader issue of an incomplete final report had been referred to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in other proceedings. It nevertheless applied the subsequent ruling in Shaurya Sunil Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2026).

Quoting that decision, it recorded: “As was the case under the erstwhile CrPC, the position under BNSS is to remain that the right to default bail arises when the chargesheet is not filed within a period of sixty or ninety days, as applicable. Once the chargesheet is filed, in compliance with the form prescribed under Section 193(3) BNSS, within the aforesaid period, the right to default bail ceases. Non-compliance with Section 193(8) of the BNSS cannot be construed to give the same result as Section 187(3) of the BNSS.”

The Court also referred to Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai (2002), which held that supporting documents may be produced subsequently and that omission to file them with the charge sheet does not necessarily invalidate it.

Accused Cannot Direct Manner Of Investigation

The Court relied on Union of India v. W.N. Chadha (1993) to explain that the collection of evidence during investigation is entrusted to the investigating agency and that an accused ordinarily has no participatory right at that stage.

The Supreme Court had held: “More so, the accused has no right to have any say as regards the manner and method of investigation. Save under certain exceptions under the entire scheme of the Code, the accused has no participation as a matter of right during the course of the investigation of a case instituted on a police report till the investigation culminates in filing of a final report under Section 173(2) of the Code or in a proceeding instituted otherwise than on a police report till the process is issued under Section 204 of the Code, as the case may be. Even in cases where cognizance of an offence is taken on a complaint notwithstanding that the said offence is triable by a Magistrate or triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the accused has no right to have participation till the process is issued.”

The Court held that the petitioner could not require the investigating officer to collect material that he believed would disprove the prosecution case and then rely on its absence to seek statutory bail.

Conclusion

The High Court held that the police report could not be treated as incomplete for the purpose of statutory bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS. It dismissed the revision and affirmed the Special Court's order refusing bail.

The Special Court was directed to dispose of the criminal case within two months of receiving the High Court's order. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Cause Title: M. Alex v. Union of India

Click here to read/download Judgment