Default Bail Right Lost if Not Availed Before Filing of Challan: Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies in Minarwa Devi v. State of Haryana

Case Name: Minarwa Devi v. State of Haryana

Date of Judgment: 24 April 2026

Citation: CRR-693-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. (now Section 187(3) BNSS) must be exercised before the filing of the challan. If not availed prior to the presentation of the challan, such right stands extinguished and cannot be enforced thereafter.

Summary: The present revision petition was filed challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad, which dismissed the petitioner’s application for default bail. The petitioner was arrested on 29.11.2025 and produced before the Court on 01.12.2025. The challan in the case was filed on 12.02.2026, whereas the application for default bail was moved on 21.02.2026.

The petitioner argued that since the challan was not filed within the statutory period of sixty days, an indefeasible right to default bail had accrued in her favour. It was contended that such right could not be defeated by subsequent filing of the challan.

On the other hand, the State opposed the petition, submitting that the right to default bail must be exercised before the filing of the challan. Since the petitioner filed the application nine days after the challan was presented, the right stood extinguished. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI.

The High Court examined the factual timeline and noted that the petitioner had not availed of her right before the filing of the challan.

Decision: The Court upheld the order of the trial Court and dismissed the revision petition. It reiterated that although the right to default bail is an indefeasible right, it is enforceable only until the filing of the challan. Once the challan is filed, the right ceases to exist if not already exercised. In the present case, since the petitioner approached the Court after the filing of the challan, the application was rightly dismissed. The Court found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and declined interference, while clarifying that observations made would not affect the merits of the case.