UAPA | Right To Default Bail Can't Be Denied Solely On Technical Grounds: Gujarat High Court Condones 146-Day Delay In NIA Appeal

The Gujarat High Court has condoned 146 day delay in filing appeal against trial court order extending accused's judicial custody over non-completion of investigation within 90 days under UAPA and NDPS Act. A division bench of Justice Ilesh J Vora and Justice RT Vachhani referred to Section 21(5) of the NI Act which states that every appeal under this section shall be preferred within 30 days from the date of the judgment, sentence or order appealed from. Provided that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of 30 days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within 30 days. Thus, proviso to Section 21(5) provides that the High Court may entertain the appeal after expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal is made out"Now, reverting to the facts of the case on hand, it would appear that by filing the appeal, the applicant has sought to challenge the grant of extension from 90 days to 180 days on the grounds agitated in the memo of appeal and the consequence thereof flaws the personal liberty of the accused guaranteed under the statute which imposes drastic punishment as the right to default bail as has been correctly held by the plethora of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, are not the mere statutory rights under the first proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code, but is part of the procedure established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which is a fundamental right granted to the accused persons to be released on bail if the condition of the first proviso to Section 167(2) are fulfilled. The embargo of limitation of 90 days virtually renders an aggrieved person remediless which in the matter of rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India through procedure is not the purpose of law and the right to life and personal liberty in ordinary circumstances cannot be irrationally barred even for a sufferrer who seems indolent and the same cannot be rejected solely on the technical ground," the court said. The court said that default bail plea in comparison to the application for regular bail stands squarely on a different footing. Thus if the delay sought to be condoned in preferring the appeal at this juncture is not condoned it would amount to depriving the applicant of his statutory right at least to place his case, which otherwise would be determined on its own merits. "Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, when there is a divergence of views amongst the different High Courts and the Hon'ble Apex Court being seized with the similar issue on hand, in WP (C) No.1076 of 2019, W.P. (Crl.) No.114 of 2024 and WP (C) No.1167 of 2021 and until the authoritative view is pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court, so also without much delving on technicalities, the order to condone the delay finds a good law. The applicant has set out the sufficient cause as observed herein above and therefore, in view of the discussions made in preceeding paragraphs, the present application deserves consideration. Delay of 146 days caused in preferring the appeal is condoned. Registry is directed to register the appeal and to assign the regular number," the court said. The court was hearing an application seeking condonation of 146 day delay in filding appeal under Section 21 NIA Act challenging Special NIA court's order which extended the period of investigation / judicial custody under Section 43(D)(2)(b) of the UAPA and under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act.The NIA had moved an application seeking extension of accused's judicial custody from 90 days to 180 days under Section 43D(2) (B) UAPA and under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, contending that considering the facts and circumstances stated in the application it was not possible for the NIA to complete the investigation against the accused within 90 days. It was prayed to extend the judicial custody of the applicant – accused from 90 days to 180 days as per the provisions of UAPA and NDPS Act. Notice was sent to the applicant – accused herein through the Central Jail, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad; however the applicant – accused is alleged to have refused to accept the notice and considering the report of the Jail authority and after hearing the Special Public Prosecutor, the trial court allowed the NIA's application on 09-07-2025. Accused moved the high court in appeal, filed with a delay of 146 days. Applicant argued that main cause of delay is on account of non-supply of connected material and delayed receipt of the trial court order. It was submitted that applicant had moved application on 30/07/2025 seeking all the relevant applications, including the trial court order to enable him to file a default bail application which was ultimately received by him on 24/11/2025.NIA contended that applicant was served with the NIA's application seeking extension of judicial custody, in...

UAPA | Right To Default Bail Can't Be Denied Solely On Technical Grounds: Gujarat High Court Condones 146-Day Delay In NIA Appeal

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

UAPA | Right To Default Bail Can't Be Denied Solely On Technical Grounds: Gujarat High Court Condones 146-Day Delay In NIA Appeal

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers