Yash Mishra v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors, 2025
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela upheld the constitutional validity of Section 193(9) of BNSS, 2023.
Judgement Details
Court
Delhi High Court
Date of Decision
28 August 2025
Judges
Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
A PIL was filed by lawyer Yash Mishra challenging the constitutional validity of Section 193(9) read with Section 187(3) of BNSS, 2023.
-
The petitioner argued that Section 193(9) allows “further investigation” after the police file a report with the Magistrate, which allegedly undermines the accused’s statutory right to default bail.
-
The PIL claimed the provision is arbitrary and violates Article 21 by potentially causing undue detention without proper safeguards.
-
The petitioner sought guidelines to ensure timely completion of further investigation.
Issues
-
Whether Section 193(9) of BNSS violates the constitutional rights of accused persons, particularly the right to default bail under Article 21?
-
Whether the provision allowing further investigation after police report submission is arbitrary and unfettered?
-
Whether the procedural safeguards provided in the proviso (requiring court permission and time limits) are adequate to prevent misuse?
Judgement
-
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela upheld the constitutional validity of Section 193(9) of BNSS, 2023.
-
The Court observed that the power to conduct further investigation is not unfettered and is subject to adequate safeguards:
-
Further investigation during trial requires court permission.
-
Such investigation must be completed within 90 days, with extensions allowed only by the Court’s leave.
-
-
The Court held that these safeguards negate the argument of arbitrariness.
-
The Bench rejected the petitioner’s contention that accused persons lack adequate safeguards to exercise their right to default bail.
-
It was held that any potential misuse of statutory provisions is not sufficient ground to declare them unconstitutional. The PIL was dismissed.
Held
- Section 193(9) of BNSS, 2023, read with Section 187(3), is constitutionally valid, does not violate Article 21, and does not undermine the accused’s right to default bail due to built-in safeguards requiring court permission and limiting the duration of further investigation.
Analysis
-
The Court carefully balanced the state’s interest in effective investigation with the accused’s right to liberty.
-
By requiring judicial oversight for further investigation, the provision prevents arbitrary prolongation of police action.
-
The time-bound nature (90 days with possible extension only by court order) ensures investigations are conducted expeditiously.
-
The judgment reinforces that statutory rights cannot be rendered ineffective by procedural provisions when adequate checks exist.
-
It also sets a precedent that potential misuse alone does not invalidate a law; safeguards and judicial remedies exist to curb abuse.