The Indefeasible Right: A Jurisprudential Treatise on Default Bail and the Temporal Efficacy of Subsequent Chargesheet Filing

I. Introduction: The Constitutional Conundrum of Personal Liberty and Procedural Compliance

The jurisprudence of criminal procedure in India operates within a delicate equilibrium, balancing the sovereign’s imperative to investigate and prosecute crime against the individual’s fundamental right to personal liberty. This tension is most palpable in the context of “default bail,” a statutory mechanism that serves as a check on the executive’s power to detain an individual indefinitely without trial. The concept, enshrined originally in Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and now mirrored with significant modifications in Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), represents a legislative compromise: the state is granted a specific timeframe to complete its investigation, after which the right to liberty accrues to the accused as an “indefeasible right.”

The query addressed in this report—whether the subsequent filing of a chargesheet defeats an indefeasible right to default bail that has already been availed by the accused upon the expiry of the statutory period—strikes at the very heart of this compromise. It raises a fundamental question of temporal priority: Does the right to liberty, once crystallized by the lapse of time and the proactive assertion by the accused, withstand a belated attempt by the prosecution to cure its default?

The prevailing legal position, distilled from decades of Supreme Court precedents and reaffirmed by High Court judgments as recently as 2025, is that the right to default bail, once “availed of” by filing an application upon the expiry of the statutory period, cannot be extinguished by the subsequent filing of a chargesheet. The “point of no return” is the filing of the application. However, this seemingly settled principle is currently navigating a turbulent phase of legal interpretation involving “incomplete chargesheets,” the transitional applicability of the BNSS, and the implications of pending references to larger benches of the Supreme Court.

This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the subject. It traces the historical evolution of the “indefeasible right,” dissects the statutory transition from CrPC to BNSS, analyzes the pivotal “Uday Mohanlal Acharya” doctrine, and examines the complex contemporary landscape dominated by the Ritu Chhabaria versus Manpreet Singh Talwar judicial conflict.

II. The Theoretical and Historical Underpinnings of Default Bail

To fully appreciate the sanctity of the “subsequent filing” rule, one must understand the legislative history that birthed the concept of default bail. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which governed India during the colonial era, did not contain a strict time limit for the completion of investigations. Section 167 of the 1898 Code allowed magistrates to remand accused persons to custody, but the absence of a “guillotine” provision meant that undertrials often languished in prison for months or years while police investigations dragged on lethargically.

2.1 The Law Commission’s Intervention and the 1973 Code

The Law Commission of India, in its 41st Report, recognized this systemic abuse of the power of remand. It observed that the power to detain a person without trial is a drastic power that must be strictly regulated. The Commission recommended a mandatory cutoff, arguing that if the police could not gather sufficient evidence to file a chargesheet within a reasonable time (originally proposed as 60 days), the accused should not be made to suffer incarceration due to the state’s inefficiency.

This recommendation was codified in Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973. The provision introduced a paradigm shift: it stripped the Magistrate of the jurisdiction to authorize detention beyond the prescribed period (60 or 90 days) if the investigation was not complete. At that precise moment, the custody, which was hitherto legal, essentially becomes unauthorized unless the accused is released on bail.

2.2 The Nexus with Article 21

The Supreme Court has elevated this statutory right to the status of a fundamental right. In Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2020) and M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer (2020), the Court clarified that Section 167(2) is not merely a procedural rule but a legislative exposition of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.[1] Article 21 guarantees that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” The “procedure” for continued detention during investigation is valid only for the statutory period (60/90/180 days). Beyond this limit, the “procedure established by law” mandates release. Therefore, denying default bail when the conditions are met is not just a statutory violation; it is a constitutional infringement.

This constitutional character is what makes the right “indefeasible.” It is a right that cannot be defeated, annulled, or forfeited by the state’s subsequent actions once the conditions for its exercise have been met.

III. Statutory Architecture: CrPC vs. BNSS

The transition from the CrPC to the BNSS in July 2024 has introduced new nuances to the calculation of time and the nature of custody, which directly impact when the “default” occurs.

3.1 Comparative Analysis of Provisions

The following table highlights the critical differences and continuities between the old and new codes relevant to default bail:

Feature	Section 167(2) CrPC (Old)	Section 187 BNSS (New)	Implication for Default Bail
Statutory Period (Lower)	60 days	60 days	No change in the trigger point for default bail for lesser offenses.
Statutory Period (Higher)	90 days (Death, Life, >10 years)	90 days (Death, Life, Imprisonment of 10 years or more)	Clarification on “10 years or more” narrows the 90-day scope slightly.
Police Custody	First 15 days only (generally)	15 days can be taken in parts within the first 40/60 days	Crucial: Police may argue investigation is “active” due to pending custody, but courts have held this does not extend the 60/90 day limit.
Indefeasible Right	Explicit in Proviso (a)	Explicit in Section 187(3)	The core right remains intact.
Bail Provision	Deemed to be under Chapter XXXIII	Deemed to be under Chapter XXXV	Procedural references change, substantive right remains.

3.2 The “Ten Years or More” Controversy

A significant interpretive battleground that affects the “subsequent filing” issue is the categorization of offenses. Under the CrPC, there was ambiguity regarding offenses punishable with imprisonment “up to 10 years.” Did “up to” mean it fell into the 90-day bracket or the 60-day bracket?

The Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam (2017) settled this by holding that “not less than 10 years” means the minimum sentence must be 10 years. Section 187(3)(i) of the BNSS codifies this by using the phrase “imprisonment of ten years or more”. [3]

Implication for the Applicant: If an accused is charged with an offense where the maximum sentence is 10 years but the minimum is less (e.g., 7 years), the default bail right accrues on the 61st day. If the prosecution operates under the mistaken belief that they have 90 days and files the chargesheet on the 75th day, the accused is entitled to default bail if they applied between Day 61 and Day 75. The subsequent filing on Day 75 does not cure the default that occurred on Day 60.

3.3 Police Custody Flexibility and Delay

Section 187(2) of the BNSS allows police custody to be fragmented and sought over a longer period (first 40 or 60 days). This was intended to aid complex investigations. However, defense counsels have expressed concern that this could be used to delay the “conclusion” of investigation.

Importantly, the courts have interpreted that the flexibility in police custody does not expand the total period of detention before the chargesheet is filed. The 60/90 day deadline remains absolute. Even if the police have unused police custody days remaining, if the 60/90 day clock runs out without a chargesheet, the default bail right triggers. [4]

IV. The Doctrine of “Availment”: The Point of No Return

The central question of this report—whether a subsequent chargesheet defeats a pending bail application—has been the subject of a fierce jurisprudential tug-of-war. To understand the current position, we must analyze the evolution of the “Availment Doctrine.”

4.1 The “Sanjay Dutt” Dilemma (1994)

The Constitution Bench in Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI (1994) laid down the initial modern framework. The Court held that the right to default bail is indefeasible, but it is a right that must be actively “availed of.” The Bench further clarified that if the accused fails to exercise this right and the prosecution undertakes a subsequent filing of chargesheet, the right to bail may no longer survive.

The critical ambiguity in Sanjay Dutt was the definition of “availed.” Did “availed” mean:

1. Merely filing the application?
2. The Court hearing the application?
3. The Court granting the order?
4. The accused actually furnishing the bail bond?

Prosecution agencies aggressively argued for interpretations 3 or 4, asserting that until the bail bond is furnished, they have the right to file a chargesheet and defeat the bail.

4.2 The Uday Mohanlal Acharya Resolution (2001)

The Supreme Court resolved this ambiguity in Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra (2001).[5] This judgment is the cornerstone of the user’s favorable position.

A three-judge bench (2:1 majority) held that the expression “availed of” simply means the filing of the application by the accused.

The Majority View (Justice Pattanaik):

“If the accused files an application for bail… on the expiry of the period… and implies his willingness to furnish bail, he must be deemed to have ‘availed of’ his right. If the prosecution files a charge-sheet subsequent to the filing of the application but before the disposal of the application, the right of the accused… is not extinguished.”

The Logic: If the right depended on the disposal of the application, it would place the fundamental liberty of the accused at the mercy of the court’s docket or the prosecutor’s delay tactics. A magistrate could simply adjourn the hearing by a day, allow the police to file the chargesheet, and then dismiss the bail application. This would render Article 21 illusory.

4.3 Reaffirmation in M. Ravindran (2020)

Despite Uday Mohanlal, confusion persisted, as in M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer (2020), where the accused applied for default bail on Day 181, and a subsequent filing of chargesheet while the Magistrate’s notice was pending led the High Court to cancel the bail.

The Supreme Court reversed the High Court, explicitly ruling:

1. The Window of Liberty: There is a window of time between the expiry of the statutory period and the filing of the chargesheet.
2. Locking the Door: Once the accused files the application, they have “locked” their claim to liberty. The subsequent filing of the chargesheet cannot unlock the door to continued detention.
3. Duty of the Court: The Court reprimanded the practice of delaying bail hearings. It stated that such applications should ideally be decided on the same day. If adjourned, and a chargesheet is filed in the interim, the application must still be decided as if the chargesheet was not on record. [2]

4.4 The “Paper Tiger” Argument

Critics of this strict interpretation (often from the prosecution side) argue that releasing a person accused of heinous crimes (like terrorism or drug trafficking) purely on a technicality, even when the investigation is complete a few hours later, puts societal safety at risk.

However, the Supreme Court has consistently held that this “technicality” is the only safeguard against the state’s lethargy. The “indefeasible right” is a sanction against the state. If the state wants to keep a dangerous criminal in custody, it must be efficient. It cannot ask the court to condone its delay by citing the gravity of the offense. As noted in Bikramjit Singh, the right flows from the procedure established by law; violating that procedure makes the detention illegal, regardless of the crime’s severity.[1]

V. The “Subsequent Filing” Paradox: Operationalizing the Rule

Having established the legal principle, we must now examine how it operates in the messy reality of trial courts, where filings, timestamps, and administrative delays collide.

5.1 The “Same Day” Scenario

What happens if both the bail application and the chargesheet are filed on the same day (e.g., Day 61 or Day 91)?

Recent jurisprudence from 2024-2025 has become extremely granular, looking at the precise time of filing.

In Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab (March 4, 2025) 10, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dealt with this exact issue:

• Facts: Accused arrested on Nov 5, 2024. 90-day period expired.
• Event A: Accused filed for default bail on Feb 3, 2025, at 2:00 PM.
• Event B: Investigating Officer filed the chargesheet on Feb 3, 2025, at 3:15 PM.
• Trial Court Ruling: Denied bail because chargesheet was filed on the same day.
• High Court Ruling: Reversed. The Court held that at 2:00 PM, the right was “availed.” At that specific moment, no chargesheet existed. The chargesheet filed at 3:15 PM was “subsequent” in time, even if on the same date. The law recognizes fractions of a day in matters of liberty.

Key Insight: This judgment underscores the critical importance of e-filing receipts and timestamps. In the manual era, “same day” often meant the prosecution won. In the digital filing era (under e-Courts projects in India), the exact minute matters.

5.2 The “Pending Extension” Scenario

In cases under special acts like UAPA or NDPS, the prosecution can seek an extension of time. A common tactic is to file an application for extension after the period expires but before the accused is released.

In Anirudh Rajan v. State of Karnataka (April 2025) [6], the court held that an extension application must be filed before the expiry of the period. If the 90 days expire, and the accused files for bail, a subsequent application for extension (even if filed before the chargesheet) is non est (void). The court loses the jurisdiction to extend time once the right to bail has crystallized.

5.3 The “Administrative Delay” Defense

Can the prosecution argue that they prepared the chargesheet on time but the “court registry was closed” or “the server was down”?

The courts have generally been unsympathetic to administrative excuses from the state. In Bikramjit Singh, the Court noted that the right to default bail is fundamental. If the prosecution failed to file the report in court, the default has occurred. The accused cannot be penalized for the state’s logistical failures.

However, the converse protects the accused: if the accused tries to file the bail application but cannot due to court holidays or server errors, courts have been more lenient, often treating the intent to file (manifested at the first opportunity) as availing the right, provided the chargesheet hasn’t been filed yet.

5.4 Procedural Checklist for the “Subsequent Filing” Defense

For an applicant to successfully claim default bail in the face of a subsequent filing of chargesheet, the following factual matrix must be established:

1. Calculation: The statutory period (60/90 days) must have fully expired (excluding the date of remand).
2. Clean Record: No chargesheet was on the record at the opening of court hours on Day 61/91.
3. The Filing: The bail application was filed before the chargesheet. This is the “Availment Point.”
4. Readiness: The application must state that the accused is “prepared to furnish bail.” (Though Ravindran clarifies that actual furnishing is not needed immediately, the willingness must be pleaded).
5. No Waiver: The accused must not have waived the right (e.g., by not filing the application and allowing the chargesheet to be filed first).

If these conditions are met, the subsequent filing of the chargesheet becomes a nullity regarding the question of bail.

VI. The “Incomplete Chargesheet” Controversy: Ritu Chhabaria and Beyond

While the timeline rule regarding subsequent filing is relatively clear, a new and complex battlefield has emerged regarding the nature of the filing itself. Prosecution agencies, unable to complete investigations within 60/90 days, began filing “preliminary” or “incomplete” chargesheets merely to stop the clock, while continuing the investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.

6.1 The Ritu Chhabaria Judgment (April 2023)

In Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India, the Supreme Court took a strong stance against this practice. The Court held:

• A chargesheet filed without completing the investigation is not a valid chargesheet under Section 173(2).
• Filing such a report merely to defeat the right to default bail is a “subterfuge” and a fraud on the statute.
• Therefore, even if such a “chargesheet” is filed on time, the accused is entitled to default bail because, in the eyes of the law, no valid report exists.[12]

This judgment was a massive victory for civil liberties, as it prevented the state from filing “dummy” chargesheets to keep accused persons in custody indefinitely.

6.2 The “Recall” and the Judicial Standoff (2023-2025)

The Union of India, alarmed by the implications of Ritu Chhabaria for high-stakes investigations (terror, money laundering), moved an application to “recall” the judgment. In a rare procedural move, a different bench of the Supreme Court (led by the CJI) issued an interim order on May 12, 2023.

The Order: Courts should decide default bail applications “independent of and without relying on” the Ritu Chhabaria judgment until a larger bench decides the issue.[12]

Current Status (December 2025): The issue has been referred to a larger bench in the case Directorate of Enforcement v. Manpreet Singh Talwar. [8] As of late 2025, this reference is still pending.

6.3 The “Manpreet Singh Talwar” Effect on Your Query

This pending reference complicates the “subsequent filing” scenario in one specific variation:

• Scenario: The statutory period expires. The accused files for bail. The prosecution then files a chargesheet. The accused argues the chargesheet is “incomplete” (e.g., missing FSL report).
• Outcome: Under Uday Mohanlal, the accused should get bail simply because the application came first. However, if the prosecution filed the chargesheet before the application but it was incomplete, the accused would rely on Ritu Chhabaria.
• Judicial Trend 2025: Courts are currently hesitant to grant bail solely on the “incomplete chargesheet” ground due to the SC stay. In Irfan v. State (July 2025) [10] and the Orissa High Court judgment (Dec 2025) [9], the courts rejected bail where the chargesheet was filed, holding that the “completeness” issue is sub-judice.
• Crucial Distinction: If the chargesheet was filed subsequent to the bail application (as in your query), the Manpreet Singh Talwar controversy is irrelevant. The accused wins on the timing alone (Uday Mohanlal). The “completeness” of the chargesheet only matters if the chargesheet was filed before the bail application to stop the clock. Since your query posits a subsequent filing, the nature of that chargesheet doesn’t matter because it was too late anyway.

6.4 CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan (2024): The Pendency Exception

In CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan (2024), the Supreme Court clarified that if a chargesheet is filed against Accused A, but investigation is pending against Accused B, Accused A cannot claim default bail on the ground of “incomplete investigation”.[11] The report is considered complete qua the accused named in it.

This limits the scope of default bail arguments. An accused cannot leverage the broader incompleteness of the case conspiracy to claim liberty if the evidence against them is filed.

VII. Special Statutes: Nuances in NDPS and UAPA Cases

The user’s query may involve offenses under special acts, where the stakes—and the timelines—are higher. The principles of default bail apply here but with statutory modifications.

7.1 NDPS Act (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act)

• Timeline: 180 days (extendable up to 1 year).
• Conditions for Extension: The prosecutor must file a report indicating the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for detention beyond 180 days (Section 36A(4)).
• Recent Case Law: In Jaivardhan Dhawan v. NCB (2025) [12], the court held that an extension granted without notice to the accused or after the 180 days have expired is void. If the extension is void, the 180-day limit stands. If the accused filed for bail on Day 181, a subsequent chargesheet (or a subsequent valid extension) cannot defeat the right.
• FSL Reports: A major issue in NDPS cases is whether a chargesheet filed without the Chemical Examiner’s Report (confirming the substance is a drug) is valid. While Ritu Chhabaria would say “no,” the Manpreet Singh Talwar stay means many High Courts (like Delhi and Orissa) currently treat such chargesheets as valid for stopping the clock. [9]

7.2 UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act)

• Timeline: 90 days (extendable to 180 days).
• Judicial Scrutiny: The scrutiny for default bail in UAPA is intense. However, in Bikramjit Singh, the Supreme Court held that the right to default bail applies even in UAPA cases. The stringent bail conditions of Section 43D(5) (no bail if prima facie case exists) apply only to regular bail, not default bail. [1]
• Subsequent Filing: If the investigation agency fails to get an extension within 90 days, and the accused applies for bail, a chargesheet filed on Day 92 cannot stop the release, even if the accused is a terror suspect. The procedural lapse is fatal to the custody.

VIII. Comparative Table: Judicial Treatment of “Subsequent Filing”

This table summarizes how courts have adjudicated cases involving Subsequent chargesheet filing and default bail, specifically where the bail application was filed prior to the chargesheet, highlighting key decisions from 2024–2025.

Case / Authority	Facts	Ruling	Rationale
Uday Mohanlal Acharya (SC, 2001)	Application filed on expiry. Chargesheet filed subsequently.	Bail Granted	Right is “availed” upon filing. Subsequent acts cannot extinguish it.
M. Ravindran (SC, 2020)	Application filed. Hearing adjourned. Complaint filed during adjournment.	Bail Granted	Delays by court/prosecution cannot prejudice the accused. Application time is the freezer point.
Jaswinder Singh (P&H HC, 2025)	Application at 2:00 PM. Chargesheet at 3:15 PM (Same Day).	Bail Granted	“Same day” is not a single unit. Priority of time prevails. 2:00 PM filing crystallized the right.
Anirudh Rajan (Karnataka HC, 2025)	Extension sought after expiry and after bail application.	Bail Granted	Court became functus officio regarding remand extension once the period expired and right was availed.
Irfan v. State (Delhi HC, 2025)	Chargesheet filed before application. Argued “incomplete”.	Bail Denied	Chargesheet was filed prior to availing. Ritu Chhabaria argument rejected due to SC stay.
Manpreet Singh Talwar (SC, Pending)	Pending reference on “incomplete chargesheet”.	Sub-judice	The definition of “valid chargesheet” is under review, but the timing rule of Uday Mohanlal remains unchallenged.

IX. Synthesis and Conclusion

The landscape of default bail jurisprudence shows that once the statutory period expires, the law treats a subsequent filing of the chargesheet as irrelevant, underscoring the judiciary’s role in protecting procedural safeguards.

9.1 The Definitive Answer to the Query

Based on the exhaustive analysis of legal history, statutory text, and binding precedents:

Yes, the applicant is entitled to default bail.

If the default bail application was filed on time (i.e., after the expiry of the 60/90/180 day period) and before the filing of the chargesheet, the subsequent filing of the chargesheet does not make a difference. The right of the accused crystallized the moment the application was filed (availed).

9.2 The Three Pillars of this Conclusion

1. Constitutional Imperative: The right flows from Article 21. Retrospective validation of illegal custody (by filing a subsequent chargesheet) is constitutionally impermissible.
2. Binding Precedent: The Constitution Bench in Sanjay Dutt, as clarified by Uday Mohanlal and Ravindran, confirms that in default bail cases, subsequent filing of a chargesheet cannot extinguish the accused’s right.
3. Procedural Priority: The recent Jaswinder Singh (2025) judgment confirms that courts will look at the precise chronology. The state cannot use a “photofinish” filing to defeat a right that has already accrued.

9.3 Strategic Imperatives for Legal Practitioners

• File Immediately: The application should be filed on the 61st/91st day at the earliest hour (10:00 AM).
• Secure Evidence of Filing: In the era of Jaswinder Singh, obtaining a timestamped acknowledgement or e-filing receipt is crucial to prove the application preceded the chargesheet.
• Resist Adjournments: Counsel must insist on a hearing “forthwith,” citing M. Ravindran. Any attempt by the prosecution to seek a “pass over” to file papers must be vigorously opposed as a violation of the indefeasible right.
• Distinguish “Incomplete” vs “Subsequent”: Do not confuse the Ritu Chhabaria issue with the Uday Mohanlal issue. If your application was filed before the chargesheet, you do not need to argue that the chargesheet is incomplete; you only need to argue it is late. This avoids the Manpreet Singh Talwar stay complications.

In conclusion, the default bail subsequent filing rule serves as a safeguard against arbitrary detention, ensuring that an accused’s timely assertion of liberty cannot be nullified by the state’s delayed chargesheet.

References

[1] 11-12-2025 (txt) – Delhi High Court, accessed on December 24, 2025, https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/NBK11122025CRLW37782025_170525.txt

[2]  Grounds on which Bailcan be granted/rejected. c) lmposition of conditions while granting Bail d).Power to modify conditions – S3waas, accessed on December 24, 2025, https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec030b6ace9e8971cf36f1782aa982a7/uploads/2025/09/2025090822.pdf

[3] BAIL — COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CrPC, 1973 AND BNSS, 2023 – JUDICIAL ACADEMY JHARKHAND, accessed on December 24, 2025, https://jajharkhand.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Bail-Reading-Material-Web-.pdf

[4] Relevant Rulings Under BNSS The binding precedents in cases decided under Cr.P.C, to the extent of pari materia provisions in B. – S3waas, accessed on December.

[5] Clarification on Default Bail under Section 167(2) CrPC in NDPS Act Cases: Supreme Court Upholds Indefeasible Right – CaseMine, accessed on December 24, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/clarification-on-default-bail-under-section-167(2)-crpc-in-ndps-act-cases:-supreme-court-upholds-indefeasible-right/view

[6] WP No. 2294 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR JU, accessed on December 24, 2025, https://images.assettype.com/barandbench-kannada/2025-05-09/2ca7hle2/Anirudh_Rajan_Vs_State_of_Karnataka.pdf

[7] Default Bail, Personal Liberty, and the Master of the Roster – Constitutional Law and Philosophy, accessed on December 24, 2025, https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2023/05/01/default-bail-personal-liberty-and-the-master-of-the-roster/

[8] in the high court of madhya pradesh – Mphc.gov.in, accessed on December 24, 2025, https://mphc.gov.in/upload/indore/MPHCIND/2025/MCRC/16602/MCRC_16602_2

[9] Jamir Miya & Another vs Sstate Of Odisha …. Opposite Party on 15 …, accessed on December 24, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/65153061/

[10] CRL.MC 5062/2025 – Delhi High Court, accessed on December 24, 2025, https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/67929072025CRLMM50622025_190508.pdf

[11] Preliminary Chargesheet And Grant Of Default Bail: Untangling The Web, accessed on December 24, 2025, https://disputeresolution.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2024/05/preliminary-chargesheet-and-grant-of-default-bail-untangling-the-web/

[12] Extension of NDPS Investigation Without Producing the Accused is Void: Default Bail as an Article 21 Right under BNSS – Commentary on Jaivardhan Dhawan v. NCB – CaseMine, accessed on December 24, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/extension-of-ndps-investigation-without-producing-the-accused-is-void:-default-bail-as-an-article-21-right-under-bnss-%E2%80%93-commentary-on-jaivardhan-dhawan-v.-ncb/view