Delhi HC Rejects PIL Challenging BNSS Provision On 'Further Investigation'

(MENAFN- IANS) New Delhi, Aug 28 (IANS) The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought the framing of guidelines to ensure timely completion of 'further investigation' in criminal cases.

The petition sought a direction that the powers conferred by the words "further investigation" under Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, cannot be unlimited, and that once a charge sheet has been filed, an accused cannot be detained beyond the maximum period prescribed under Section 187(3) of BNSS and must be released by virtue of default bail.

The petition argued that Section 193(9), when read with Section 187(3) of BNSS, arbitrarily curtailed the right to "default bail" by enabling investigating agencies to prolong an accused's detention indefinitely.

The petitioner contended that the lack of a fixed timeline for completing "further investigation" made the provision unconstitutional.

Rejecting the PIL, a bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that Section 193(9) of BNSS was neither arbitrary nor a camouflage to defeat default bail.

It observed that the provision contained“adequate safeguards,” since further investigation during trial can only be undertaken with the permission of the trial court.

"We may also note that such further investigation to be conducted with the permission of the court is to be completed within 90 days, which, though, is extendable; however, such extension is permissible only with leave of the court," the bench said.

The Delhi High Court held that Sections 193(9) and 187(3) "operate in different fields" and that the statutory right to default bail remains unaffected. It stressed that "any possible potential misuse of a statutory provision is not a ground available to challenge the same and to term it unconstitutional".

Citing Supreme Court precedents, the CJ Upadhyaya-led bench said that the courts appear to be precluded from striking down any statutory provision if it is prone to misuse. Observing that "the courts are empowered only to interpret the law and they cannot legislate", the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition with no order as to costs.

MENAFN28082025000231011071ID1109987663