BNSS Doesn't Curtail UAPA Detention To 90 Days: Delhi High Court Denies Default Bail To Red-Fort Bomb Blast Accused
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (August 18) denied default bail to Jasir Bilal Wani @ Danish one of the accused in the car explosion that took place on November 10, 2025 near Red Fort which claimed 15 lives. Applying the doctrine of legislation by reference the court said that Section 167 CrPC as applicable to Section 43(D)(2) UAPA must be construed as Section 187 BNSS. For context under...
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (August 18) denied default bail to Jasir Bilal Wani @ Danish one of the accused in the car explosion that took place on November 10, 2025 near Red Fort which claimed 15 lives.
Applying the doctrine of legislation by reference the court said that Section 167 CrPC as applicable to Section 43(D)(2) UAPA must be construed as Section 187 BNSS.
For context under first proviso of Section 43D(2) UAPA detention can be extended to 180 days where investigation is not completed within 90 days as provided under Section 167 CrPC.
The appellant had argued that he was entitled to default bail after expiry of 90 days from the date of arrest. It was argued that the FIR was registered after the BNSS came into force and in the absence of reference to Section 187 BNSS in Section 43D(2), the BNSS would prevail. Hence, the extension of the detention period beyond 90 days to 180 days, would not be applicable.
The court was considering whether after enactment of Section 187 BNSS, the first proviso to Section 43D(2) UAPA which extends the period of investigation to 180 days would be applicable or not. As a corollary - the question is whether, after enactment of BNSS, an accused person in a UAPA case would be entitled to default bail after 90 days or after 180 days.
A division bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan said that while Cr.P.C. stands, Section 43D(2) of the UAPA continues to refer to Section 167 Cr.P.C. The difference between Section 167 Cr.P.C. and Section 187 of the BNSS is in respect of the period for police custody within the 90 days period.
It noted that the detention period of 15 days, 60 days and 90 days under Section 167 Cr.P.C. was modified to 30 days, 90 days and 90 days under Section 43(D)(2) of the UAPA.
"However, this modification was with reference to Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. and not Section 187 of the BNSS. The first proviso to Section 43D(2) of the UAPA extends the period of 90 days upto 180 days. Again, this is with reference to Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. and not Section 187 of the BNSS," the court noted.
Referring to Section 43D of the UAPA and the manner in which it refers to Section 167 of the Cr.P.C., the court said that Section 167 Cr.P.C. "has not been bodily lifted" into Section 43D(2) UAPA.
It said that Section 167 Cr.P.C. is a detailed provision and continues to be so prior to its repeal for the purpose Section 43D(2) of the UAPA. It said that Section 43D(2) UAPA merely modifies the time periods mentioned in Section 167 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of UAPA.
"The question again is whether this reference to Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. would automatically be deemed to be a reference to Section 187 of the BNSS or not. Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 makes it clear that unless a different intention appears, the reference in the provision in question should be construed as reference to the new provision. By this simple test, therefore, Section 167 of Cr.P.C. in Section 43D(2) of the UAPA ought to be construed as reference to Section 187 BNSS.
The question now for the purpose of this case is whether the first proviso to Section 43D(2) of the UAPA applies or not. There is no intention that can be deciphered from a reading of the BNSS that it seeks to express anything to the contrary. The BNSS merely makes some modifications in the 15 days period of police custody. However, broadly, the 15 days, 60 days and 90 days would still have to be construed as 30 days, 90 days and 90 days for the UAPA. By applying Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 along with the principle of 'Legislation by reference', it becomes clear that in the case of Section 43D(2) of the UAPA, reference to Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. has to be construed as reference to Section 187 of the BNSS. The first proviso to Section 43D(2) would therefore apply and the period of detention can be extended upto 180 days"
For context, Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 enable seamless applicability of provisions of a new statute replacing an old statute.
The court said that ultimately, the intention of the Legislature has to be seen, wherein the purpose of increasing the detention period to 180 days in the UAPA, is clearly to provide longer period of detention for heinous offences such as terrorism. Observing that this intention cannot be forgotten the court said thus said that mere enactment of BNSS this intention of the Legislature cannot be defeated.
The court also observed first extension of custody in the case was granted by the Trial Court on February 13 which was not challenged by the Appellant. It was only when the second extension was granted and the default bail application was dismissed that the challenge has been raised to the first extension.
Even when first extension was granted, it was after the BNSS had come into force but the appellant chose not to challenge it, the court said. Thus the first extension order attained finality, the court said, and the appellant by acquiescence lost the right to subsequently challenge the first extension and seek default bail on the basis thereof.
The court further noted that as of now even the charge-sheet has been filed on May 14.
"Thus, at this stage, the Appellant cannot seek to challenge that he was entitled to default bail after the period of 90 days as in the opinion of this Court, that ship has sailed. The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed," the court added.
Case title: JASIR BILAL WANI @ DANISH v/s NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
CRL.A. 444/2026
Appearance: Ms. Warisha Farasat, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Suvarna Swain, Adv.
Mr. Madhav Khurana, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Trisha Mittal, Mr. Anil Dabas, Mr. Teeksh Singhal, Mr. Deeparghya Datta and Mr. Nishant Sharma, Advs. with Dr. Navneet Sharma CIO for NIA