Whether the applicant was entitled to default bail due to the alleged incompleteness of the chargesheet: Delhi High Court

Introduction:

On March 10, 2025, the Delhi High Court delivered a significant ruling in Ashish Pathak v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Bail Appln. 3836/2024), addressing the issue of default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The judgment, rendered by Hon’ble Justice Sanjeev Narula, examines whether the applicant was entitled to default bail due to the alleged incompleteness of the chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Factual Background:

The case arises from FIR No. RC-32(S)/2022/SC-III/ND registered on December 9, 2022, under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The CBI arrested the petitioner, Ashish Pathak, on May 16, 2023, alleging that he was a key source for journalist Vivek Raghuvanshi, who was accused of illegally collecting sensitive defense-related information. The petitioner contended that the first chargesheet filed on July 12, 2023, was incomplete, thereby entitling him to default bail.

Legal Issues:

1. Default Bail under Section 167(2) CrPC – Whether the first chargesheet filed by the CBI was incomplete, thereby violating the petitioner’s right to default bail.
2. Scope of Supplementary Chargesheets – Whether subsequent prosecution complaints could be considered as part of the original investigation or were an attempt to deny bail.
3. Validity of Continued Investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC – Whether further investigation can justify withholding information from the initial chargesheet.

Court’s Observations and Ruling:

1. First Chargesheet was Complete – The Court held that the first chargesheet contained all statutory elements required under Section 173(2) CrPC. The details included the nature of the offense, involvement of the accused, and relevant evidentiary materials.
2. Validity of Supplementary Chargesheets – The Court ruled that filing supplementary chargesheets does not invalidate the initial chargesheet. The continued investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC was deemed permissible and did not entitle the petitioner to default bail.
3. CBI’s Conduct was Lawful – The Court rejected the argument that the CBI deliberately delayed the investigation to frustrate the petitioner’s right to bail. It noted that further evidence was legitimately incorporated in later prosecution complaints.
4. Legal Precedents Considered – The Court relied on Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI (2007) 8 SCC 770 and Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762, both of which upheld the validity of supplementary chargesheets in ongoing investigations.

Conclusion:

The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Ashish Pathak v. CBI reinforces that the mere filing of supplementary chargesheets does not render an initial chargesheet incomplete. The judgment affirms that investigative agencies retain the right to continue probing a case under Section 173(8) CrPC without automatically granting default bail to an accused. This case sets an important precedent regarding the interplay between default bail and the evolving nature of criminal investigations.

References

1. Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI (2007) 8 SCC 770.
2. Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762.
3. K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 655.
4. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kapil Wadhawan (2024) 3 SCC 734.
5. Bail Appln. 3836/2024, Delhi High Court, decided on March 10, 2025.