Extending Time To File Chargesheet Without Hearing Accused Illegal : Supreme Court Grants Default Bail To UAPA Accused

The Supreme Court has ruled an accused acquires an indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC if the investigation agency fails to file the chargesheet within the statutory period and if the extension of time is granted without complying with mandatory procedural safeguards.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing a case in which the accused in a case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act was denied the statutory right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. after the investigation agency was granted an additional 25 days, beyond the initial 90-day period, to file the charge sheet without affording the accused an opportunity of hearing.

The case arose out of an FIR registered on November 7, 2023. The appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on November 8, 2023. As the statutory 90-day period for filing the chargesheet was nearing completion, the investigating agency moved an application on February 2, 2024, seeking an extension of time by 25 days under Section 43-D(2) of the UAPA.

The Special Judge allowed the extension request. However, the accused was neither physically nor virtually produced before the court nor informed that such an application was being considered. No opportunity of hearing was granted to him. The extension order merely recorded that the investigation was still pending and mechanically extended the time for filing the chargesheet.

Subsequently, on February 8, 2024, after expiry of the initial 90-day period, the appellant filed an application seeking default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The charge sheet came to be filed only on May 2, 2024 after multiple further extensions were granted.

The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the appellant's challenge, holding that since the charge sheet had been filed within the “extended period,” the right to default bail no longer survived.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the accused moved to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned order, the order pronounced by Justice Mehta observed that the order extending the time limit for submission of a charge sheet was vitiated, for want of providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused and non-application of mind by the trial court.

“It may be reiterated that the learned Special Judge neither provided any opportunity to the appellant to oppose the prayer for extension of time to file the chargesheet nor did it apply its judicial mind while allowing the prayer for extension of time. In an absolutely mechanical manner, the learned Special Judge recorded the prayer of the public prosecutor and casually extended the period for filing of chargesheet by 25 days. Hence, the order extending time to conclude investigation is grossly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the fundamental right of liberty of the appellant as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”, the court observed. (See Jigar vs State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 794)

“If the investigation is not completed and chargesheet is not filed within the aforesaid period, it would give rise to an indefeasible right in favour of the accused to seek default bail. Hence, any direction to extend the period for filing of chargesheet encroaches upon the personal liberty of an individual arrested in connection with a cognizable offence and thus, any such direction must be preceded by due application of mind and by recording justifiable reasons.”, the court observed.

The Court said that the petitioner's indefeasible right to be released on bail was violated, as the investigation agency failed to submit the charge sheet within 90 days.

“In view of the fact that the order dated 2nd February, 2024 extending the time for completion of investigation has been held to be illegal, and since the chargesheet came to be filed well after the expiry of the statutory period of 90 days, the appellant's right to claim default bail stood crystallized upon the filing of the application under Section 167(2) of the CrPC and the appellant acquired an indefeasible right to be released on bail.”, the court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail.

Cause Title: Md. ARIZ HASNAIN @ ARIZ HASNAIN VERSUS STATE OF JHARKHAND

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 475

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhinav Sekkhri, Adv. Ms. Mehaak Jaggi, AOR Mr. Ragini Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi Standing Counsel, Adv. Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Beenu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Venkat Narayan, Adv.