Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 666Decided 1 Jul 2026
Crl.A. No.-003094-003094 - 2026
Justice Sanjay Karol · Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh · Justice N.V. Anjaria

Background

The appellant was arrested in a cyber-fraud/"digital arrest" scam investigated by the CBI, accused of providing logistical support (transporting cheque books, ATM and SIM cards) to a mule-account racket. After the CBI filed its chargesheet within the statutory time limit, the appellant argued he was entitled to default bail because additional copies of the chargesheet required for supply to him under Section 193(8) of the BNSS were not filed on time. Both the Special Judge and the Bombay High Court rejected his default bail plea.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the right to default bail arises only when the chargesheet itself is not filed within the prescribed 60/90-day period. Once a proper chargesheet is filed on time, that right is extinguished. The separate requirement to file additional copies for the accused (Section 193(8)) and to supply them within 14 days (Section 230) is a distinct, directory obligation whose breach does not invalidate the chargesheet or revive the default bail right. Since the CBI's chargesheet was filed in proper form and on time, the appeal was dismissed, though the Court clarified the appellant's separate regular bail application could still be considered on its own merits.

Lesson Learnt

Default bail is strictly tied to the timely filing of the chargesheet itself, not to procedural lapses like delayed supply of copies to the accused: those lapses may be curable separately but do not automatically entitle an accused to release.

Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware