Police Statement That 'Sufficient Material Exists To File Chargesheet' Doesn't Mean Default Bail Can Be Granted : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 21) held that a mere statement by an investigating agency, in an application seeking extension of the investigation period, that sufficient material exists to file a charge sheet cannot be construed as completion of the investigation.

In other words, the Court held that where an investigating agency, while seeking an extension of time, states that sufficient material exists to file a charge sheet but requires additional time to analyse and collate the available material, including witness statements, bank records, electronic evidence and other investigative inputs, the extension application cannot be rejected merely based on that statement.

According to the Court, the mere assertion that sufficient material exists to file a charge sheet does not, by itself, establish that the investigation is complete or confer a right to default bail upon the accused.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment granting a default bail to the Respondents-accused persons in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”). The High Court granted a default bail to the accused persons on the ground that the second application filed by the agency seeking an extension of the investigation period for another 15 days, after the initial period of 90 days, and first extension of 30 days, was wrongly allowed by the Special Court.

According to the High Court, despite the agency stating that sufficient material exists for filing the charge sheet, a second extension was wrongly granted to the agency. The High Court treated the statement by the prosecution that there is sufficient material for filing the charge sheet as an admission that the investigation is complete.

Disagreeing with the High Court's approach, the judgment authored by Justice Chandrashekhar held that the High Court erred in placing undue reliance on the prosecution's statement in the extension application that sufficient material existed to file the charge sheet, without examining the true import of the application. The prosecution had, in fact, sought a second extension to enable it to analyse and collate the material already collected during the investigation, including witness statements, bank records, electronic evidence and other investigative inputs.

“A statement made by the prosecution that there is sufficient material for filing the charge sheet cannot be interpreted by the Court as if the investigation in the case was complete. Such a statement made on behalf of the prosecution cannot be used against it to curtail the power of the ATS to complete the investigation or carry out further investigation. The High Court committed a serious error in construing a solitary statement made in the second extension application to hold that the investigation was complete.”, the Court said.

The Court emphasized that “a document has to be read as a whole and not in piecemeal.”

Further, the Court noted that the High Court went beyond the scope of the lis, to discuss the issue regarding the grant of sanction under Section 45 of UAPA, for prosecuting the offenders under the offences mentioned under Chapter III of the Act, as Section 45 strictly prohibits courts from taking cognizance of any offense under Chapter III without the prior, written sanction of the Central Government or an authorized officer.

According to the Court, the question before the High Court was not whether sanction under Section 45 UAPA is necessary for cognisance or for filing a charge sheet. Rather, the central question was whether the High Court could hold that the investigation was complete and thereby invalidate the extension granted by the Special Court.

“The entire discussion on sanction for prosecution was off-route. The High Court took a detour bypassing the gist of the prosecution's case for extension of time to file the charge sheet. Unnecessary as indeed it was, the discussion whether extension of time can be granted to the prosecution for filing the charge sheet on the ground of obtaining sanction for prosecution from the appropriate Government, as if the investigation was complete and a charge sheet was ready to be filed in the Court. The decision of the High Court to interfere with the order dated 18th January 2023 granting second extension of time to the prosecution for filing the charge sheet is palpably wrong and liable to be set aside.”, the Court said.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, thereby cancelling the default bail granted to the Respondent-accused persons.

Headnote

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) — Section 43D(2)(b) and Section 45 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 167(2), Section 173(2), and Section 196 — Investigation — Extension of Time for Completing Investigation — Default Bail — High Court Cannot Pre-emptively Declare Investigation Complete or Sever Intertwined Reasons – i. Extension of Time under Section 43D(2)(b) UAPA — Pendency of Data Analysis & Retrieval of Forensic Evidence - An extension of time beyond 90 days up to 180 days under Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA is statutorily permissible upon the Public Prosecutor's report demonstrating the progress of investigation and specific reasons for continued detention - The analysis of scientific data, digital evidence retrieved from forensic science laboratories (mobile devices, hard drives, audio recordings), and financial verification of foreign funds form an integral part of ongoing investigation that must be concluded prior to filing a complete charge sheet; ii. Holistic Interpretation of Prosecutor's Report vs. Premature Declaration of Completion of Investigation - Statements in an extension application indicating that "there is enough evidence to file a charge sheet" cannot be read in isolation or ripped out of context to mean that the investigation is complete in all respects - Investigation of cognizable offences falls within the exclusive domain of the police, and Courts cannot artificially truncate or curtail statutory investigative powers or declare the investigation complete when specialized analysis of digital and financial material remains ongoing. [Paras 14 - 33]

Interplay Between Stage of Investigation and Stage of Sanction under Section 45 UAPA - Extinction of Right to Default Bail - While sanction for prosecution under Section 45 UAPA and Section 196 CrPC is an embargo on the Court taking cognizance (and not a bar to merely filing a charge sheet), the sanctioning authority requires an independent review of all collected investigative material under Section 45(2) to apply its mind - Where the prosecution requires additional time to collate retrieved scientific data to present a complete report before the sanctioning authority, such grounds cannot be discarded as invalid or flimsy - The High Court erred in holding that awaiting sanction was the sole reason accepted and thereby invalidating the extension order - Since the order dated 18.01.2023 granting a valid 15-day extension was lawful and within the statutory framework of Section 43D(2)(b), the accused acquired no indefeasible right to default bail under the first proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC upon the expiry of earlier periods - the charge sheet having been filed within the extended timeframe. [Relied on State of NCT of Delhi v. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely, (2024) 2 SCC 632; State of Maharashtra v. Surendra Pundlik Gadling, (2019) 5 SCC 178; Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh Samra v. National Investigation Agency, (2023) 17 SCC 48; Paras 26 – 35]

Cause Title: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. VERSUS MOMIN MOIUDDIN GULAM HASAN @ MOIN MISTRI & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 966

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shaikh Saipan Dastgir, Adv. Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, AOR Mr. Shivam Yadav, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Adv. Ms. Varisha Sharma, Adv.