Bail, in its ordinary sense, is a mechanism that balances the liberty of an accused person against the State’s interest in ensuring a fair and effective investigation and trial. Indian Criminal Law recognizes several types of bail, including regular bail, anticipatory bail and interim bail, each governed by distinct considerations. Default bail is one such legal safeguard designed to protect individuals from remaining in detention for an extended period before the investigation is completed. This article analyses the conflicting judicial interpretations provided by the Supreme Court of India in Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India and Kapil Wadhwan v. Central Bureau of Investigation which extends to NDPS Act, 1985, PMLA, 2002 and UAPA, 1967. The judgment of the Chhabaria case states that an incomplete charge sheet will never defeat the statutory right of default bail under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the judgment of the Wadhwan case restricted the right of default bail by holding that investigation pending against other accused will not be relevant from a legal point of view. This resulted in a lot of confusion in trials and high courts of India. This article critically analyses judicial decisions, statutory provisions to examine the evolving jurisprudence on default bail and the conflicting interpretations adopted by the Supreme Court of India. The issue is partially clarified due to the decisions made by three-judge benches, but there is still ambiguity in this case. The issue of default bail has become confusing in India because of the divergent decisions in the cases of Ritu Chhabaria and Kapil Wadhwan. Even though the case of Chhabaria gives protection to liberty based on incomplete charge sheets, the decision in the case of Wadhwan limits this protection.