The recent pronouncement by the Delhi High Court regarding "further investigation" under section 193(9) of the BNSS, 2023, marks a pivotal moment for criminal law practitioners in India. The Court’s reasoned analysis clarifies that the right to default bail—enshrined in section 187(3)—remains inviolable even where additional investigative processes are entertained post-submission of the police report. Judicial oversight and prescribed temporal boundaries govern subsequent investigations, but the entitlement to default bail crystallises as an essential bulwark against arbitrary detention once the statutory 60/90-day threshold is surpassed and bail is duly sought.

Contextualising the BNSS Amendment

With the advent of BNSS supplanting the CrPC, the statute now explicitly contemplates further investigation after a police report has been filed. This legislative reconfiguration provoked apprehension about potential procedural abuse, notably the risk of law enforcement submitting incomplete chargesheets merely to circumvent statutory deadlines and perpetuate custody on grounds of ongoing inquiry. The Delhi High Court’s jurisprudence firmly establishes that default bail (per section 187(3)) operates independently of the provisions enabling further investigation (section 193(9)), with each mechanism serving distinct procedural objectives.

Dissecting the Statutory Framework

Section 187(3) — The Right to Default Bail:

“3) The Magistrate may authorise detention beyond fifteen days if sufficient grounds exist. However:

• 1. For offences punishable by death, life imprisonment, or at least ten years’ incarceration, detention cannot exceed ninety days;


• 2. For all other offences, it is capped at sixty days. Upon expiration, the accused must be released on bail if furnished, and such release is considered under the relevant chapter’s purposes.”

This provision draws a direct correlation between the length of pre-trial custody and eligibility for bail, fortifying the principle that lapse of the statutory period entitles the accused to bail, independent of guilt or innocence.

Section 193(9) — Facilitating Further Investigation:

“(9) Further investigation is not precluded following a report to the Magistrate. Supplementary reports may be submitted as new evidence emerges, in accordance with state guidelines. During trial, additional investigation necessitates court permission and must conclude within ninety days unless extended for valid reasons.”

This schematic permits law enforcement agencies to pursue supplementary evidence-gathering efforts, though only under judicial scrutiny and within tightly regulated timelines.

Judicial Pronouncement and Its Ramifications

In Yash Mishra v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (W.P.(Crl.) 3101/2024), the Division Bench unwaveringly upheld the constitutionality of section 193(9), affirming its harmonious coexistence with the guarantees of default bail. The verdict elucidates that both statutory sections operate autonomously, thereby preserving the primacy of liberty interests and ensuring procedural timelines are scrupulously respected. The decision underscores a foundational tenet - indefinite pre-trial detention cannot be justified by prolonged investigation alone, and the statutory right to bail remains unassailable upon expiry of the prescribed period.

Practical Implications for Stakeholders

For defendants and counsel alike, this clarity signifies that default bail is not susceptible to erosion by further investigation, so long as statutory criteria are observed. Any stratagem intended to delay proceedings through post-cognizance investigation must secure judicial sanction and adhere to rigid time constraints. Defendants retain the prerogative to challenge incomplete or strategically delayed chargesheets and invoke their entitlement to default bail where procedural compliance is lacking. Such judicial vigilance fortifies accountability and deters misuse.

Reaffirming Default Bail as a Cornerstone of Individual Rights

Judicial doctrine continues to elevate default bail - formerly rooted in section 167(2) of the CrPC and currently housed in section 187(3) of the BNSS - as an indispensable safeguard against excessive prosecutorial delay and unwarranted deprivation of liberty. The Delhi High Court’s holding thus preserves a delicate equilibrium, barring authorities from exploiting investigatory powers post-report for the sole purpose of protracting custody.

Conclusion - A Call for Vigilance and Assertion of Rights

Through its affirmation of section 193(9) and robust defence of default bail under section 187(3), the Delhi High Court has expertly demarcated the contours within which further investigation may proceed. Default bail remains a potent shield against unjustified pre-trial incarceration. Accused persons should assert their statutory rights promptly and advocate for stringent judicial regulation of any continued investigation during trial. Ultimately, the Court’s message resonates unequivocally: individual liberty stands paramount, immune to dilution by indefinite investigatory tactics.