Introduction
In a recent judgment (Suraj Kanojia v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi, BAIL APPLN. 1713/2025), the Delhi High Court clarified the scope of default bail under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Justice Tejas Karia held that a charge-sheet filed under the Arms Act, 1959, without the required sanction of the District Magistrate (Section 39, Arms Act) is not “incomplete” under Section 187(3) BNSS, and therefore the accused cannot claim default bail on that ground. In other words, mere delay in obtaining a sanction (a procedural formality) does not entitle an accused to automatic release. This decision affirms earlier precedent (e.g. Judgebir Singh v. NIA, 2023). It underscores that Section 187(3) BNSS, which guarantees default bail after 60/90 days, is not triggered by every technical defect in the charge-sheet. The judgment has important implications for cases requiring prior sanction (such as Arms Act or NDPS prosecutions), as it curtails attempts to secure default bail by filing a so-called “incomplete” report.
Case Background
The case arose from a violent incident on 25.10.2024 in Sangam Vihar, Delhi. The complainant alleged that he heard someone smashing his house gate late at night and then saw the applicant, Suraj Kanojia, and three co-accused outside. Kanojia allegedly was armed and fired a bullet through the gate, then turned the gun on the complainant and fired again, damaging property. A spot inspection recovered several empty cartridges and one live round; government CCTV footage captured the incident, and the complainant identified Kanojia from the video.
Initially, three co-accused were arrested; Kanojia remained at large. On 2.1.2025, the police submitted a charge-sheet (B.N.S. Sections 109(1)/331(6)/326(g)/324(6)/3(5)/482/324(6) and Arms Act Sections 25/27) noting Kanojia as “absconding”. Following Kanojia’s arrest on 12.1.2025 (in an unrelated Arms Act case), a supplementary charge sheet was filed on 14.2.2025, adding Kanojia under the same provisions. Kanojia was denied regular bail by the trial court on 24.3.2025. He then moved for default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS (the statutory period had expired), but that application was also dismissed on 21.4.2025. This led to his plea in the High Court.
Legal Framework
- Section 187(3) BNSS (Default Bail): BNSS Section 187 governs custody and default bail rights. Sub-section (3) provides that if the investigation is not completed within 60 days (for ordinary offences) or 90 days (for serious crimes punishable by ≥10 years), the accused must be released on bail upon furnishing it. In effect, it restates the “statutory bail” rule of old CrPC Section 167(2) (now BNSS 187(3)). The Supreme Court has emphasised that this is a fundamental Article 21 safeguard: default bail arises if no final charge-sheet is presented within the prescribed period. A similar right is triggered if a charge-sheet is filed within the time limit but is “incomplete” or “preliminary” – i.e. filed to defeat the accused’s bail rights.
- Default Bail Conditions: In plain terms, default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS is available only when the prosecution fails to file a complete charge-sheet in time. If a valid charge-sheet (duly signed by the police and containing all requisite material) is submitted within 60/90 days, the accused has no right to default bail. This accords with precedents: an incomplete report filed within time may give rise to statutory bail, whereas a timely complete report precludes it.
- Sanction Requirement (Arms Act): The Arms Act, 1959, requires government sanction for prosecuting certain offences. Section 39 (Arms Act) mandates prior approval of the District Magistrate for initiating prosecution of offences under Section 3 (and it has traditionally been interpreted to cover serious offences like Sections 25/27). In this case, offences under Sections 25/27 (use of prohibited arms) ordinarily require such sanction before court proceedings. However, as discussed below, failure to obtain a sanction does not void the investigation or charge sheet; it only affects the prosecution stage. The High Court noted that while a sanction is “mandatory for prosecution under Sections 25/27″, its absence “does not render the charge-sheet incomplete”.
- Related BNSS Sections: Section 193 BNSS (analogous to old CrPC 173) governs the contents of the police report. The applicant argued that a piecemeal investigation is disallowed by Section 193(3). The High Court observed, however, that Section 193 requires a final police report after investigation is completed, but this does not mean that a valid charge-sheet cannot be filed without an unrelated procedural sanction. In sum, the legal framework establishes that default bail (BNSS 187(3)) is tied to the investigation report’s statutory time limits and completeness, not to auxiliary formalities like sanctions.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court carefully analysed the contentions on both sides. Applicant’s case: Kanojia argued that the charge-sheet was “incomplete” because it lacked the required sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act, and therefore, under Section 187(3) BNSS, he was entitled to default bail. His counsel cited Supreme Court rulings (Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2022; M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, 2021) for the proposition that the legislature did not intend to allow investigation to be split, and that filing a preliminary or partial report should not be a tool to defeat default bail. In effect, the argument was that without sanction, the investigation was not “complete” and so cognizance could not be taken of that report.
The High Court’s analysis turned on two points: (1) whether the charge-sheet was indeed incomplete without sanction, and (2) whether default bail arose at all given the timeline. The Court first noted that the supplementary charge-sheet was filed well within 90 days of Kanojia’s arrest, satisfying the BNSS time limit. Thus, on its face, the default bail clock had not yet struck. Next, the Court addressed the completeness issue. Citing precedent, the Court held that omission of a sanction in the charge-sheet does not make it “incomplete” for purposes of Section 187(3). Quoting Judgebir Singh v. NIA (SC, 2023), the Court agreed that “a charge-sheet filed without sanction is an incomplete charge-sheet” has no merit; cognizance can only be considered at the trial stage, and sanction relates to cognizance, not investigation. The bench observed: “Sanction is a procedural requirement for taking cognizance, not for concluding investigation. A charge-sheet without sanction does not imply the investigation is incomplete.”.
The Court reinforced this view by reference to older case law. It cited Nitin Nagpal v. State (Delhi HC, 2006), in which a similar plea was rejected: non-obtaining sanction “may have a legal effect qua the prosecution but would not entail that the challan was incomplete or that investigation was not over”. Similarly, Suresh Kumar Jain v. State of Maharashtra (SC, 2013) held that Section 167 CrPC (now 187 BNSS) has no place for sanction requirements; only the completion of investigation matters. In line with these, the Court found no lacuna in the charge-sheet: all evidence (statements, CCTV, cartridges) had been collected and documented. The absence of the sanction order was merely a procedural formality.
Lastly, the Court noted that default bail under BNSS 187(3) attaches only when the report is not filed in time. Here, the report was filed within 90 days. The prosecution correctly argued that “mere pendency of a procedural formality of sanction under Section 39…does not entitle the accused to default bail”. In fact, the High Court echoed the view that cognizance is of the offence (which is cognizable), and not of an individual accused. As the State noted, a sanction under a special law does not stall taking cognizance under the general law.
In sum, the Court concluded that the charge-sheet against Kanojia was neither delayed nor incomplete, and therefore Section 187(3) BNSS did not entitle him to default bail. It dismissed his default-bail application (and ultimately his regular bail).
Implications
This ruling has significant consequences for criminal procedure under BNSS. First, it reaffirms that default bail is a remedy for genuine delay in investigation, not a loophole for technical lapses. Accused persons cannot exploit pending sanctions or other formal defects to claim statutory bail. As the Court noted, sanction-related issues are to be addressed at the cognizance/trial stage (for example, by seeking quashing of the charge or sanction), but they do not automatically trigger release. Practically, this means that in sanction-dependent prosecutions (Arms Act, NDPS Act, etc.), prosecutors can file charge sheets on time even if a sanction is awaited, without fear that the accused will gain default bail.
Second, the decision aligns the new BNSS regime with settled law under the old CrPC. The Supreme Court in Judgebir Singh and Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (1994) clarified that a sanction requirement is separate from the investigation timeline. The Delhi High Court, in making its ruling, cited Hitendra Vishnu Thakur for the principle that a special law’s sanction does not vitiate proceedings under the general code unless explicitly so provided. Thus, under BNSS, the legislature’s default-bail scheme should not be interpreted so broadly as to punish the State for sanction delays.
Finally, the judgment signals that courts will closely scrutinise claims of “incomplete” charge sheets. Merely omitting a sanction order is unlikely to suffice for default bail. To claim Section 187(3) relief, the accused must show substantive incompleteness (e.g. missing key evidence or witness statements). As the Court observed (citing Pundeer v. State, 2023), the right to default bail arises only when the prosecution has not completed its investigation within time. Because the investigation was effectively finished, Kanojia’s bail plea was rightly denied.
Conclusion
In Suraj Kanojia v. State (Delhi HC, June 2025), the Delhi High Court has settled that filing a charge-sheet under the Arms Act without the prior sanction order does not make it “incomplete” under BNSS Section 187(3), and thus cannot independently ground default bail. The Court held that a sanction is a procedural hurdle for cognizance, not a bar to completing the investigation. The ruling upholds the protective purpose of Section 187(3) BNSS while preventing its misuse: default bail remains available only when the prosecution truly fails to submit a full report within the statutory period. This clarification is significant for criminal practice in the BNSS era, ensuring that statutory bail rights and sanction requirements retain their intended scope in the criminal justice system.
About the Author
Ruhan Deb is a third-year law student at Symbiosis Law School, Noida. He is keenly interested in litigation, focusing on Criminal Law and Competition Law. Beyond the legal realm, Ruhan is passionate about global politics and history, complementing his analytical approach to legal studies. His multidisciplinary interests reflect a commitment to understanding law in broader social and geopolitical contexts.