Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Default Bail In UAPA Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected the appeal against dismissal of default bail plea filed by a person accused under Sections 13, 18, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act at Police Station Sahabad, Kurukshetra. The accused had allegedly placed an explosive device in a tiffin box on the highway between Ambala and Kurukshetra in June 2022.The division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Kuldeep Tiwari said the application for default bail was earlier filed before an "jurisdictionally incompetent court" and by the time, the fresh application was moved before Special Judge, the investigating officer had filed the chargesheet. "It is but the institution of a final report by the Investigating Officer concerned rather prior to the institution of a fresh application by the accused, before the Special Judge concerned, that makes this Court to conclude, that the dismissal order, as made by the learned Special Judge concerned, on the appellant's application, was a valid order," said the court.The appellant was arrested on August 5, 2002, and he filed the application for default bail on November 5, 2022, before the SDJM, Shahbad. The accused had filed the application on expiry of 90 days with the chargesheet not having been filed yet but since the SDJM Court was not competent to deal with the UAPA case, it transferred the case to Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. On November 07, the Investigating Officer filed the chargesheet before the Special Court. On the very same day, the file was transmitted by the SDJM to the Special Court (ASJ). The case was adjourned for consideration on November 09, 2022. However, on that day, the Presiding Officer of the Special Court was on casual leave. Since the default bail application was moved under Section 167(2) CrPC, the ASJ on November 10, 2022, directed the SDJM concerned to decide the application on merits. The SDJM, while making a reference to the notification issued by the Government of Haryana, whereby he was divested of jurisdiction to conduct trials of cases under the UAPA, held that the application filed under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. was not amenable to be decided by him, and accordingly disposed of the application.Thereafter, the accused filed a fresh default bail plea on November 11 before the Special Court, but it was rejected because the chargesheet had already been filed by that time.The division bench held that the default bail application was “aptly” rejected by the SDJM because it was “not competent' to try it, and the Special Court also correctly rejected the application as the chargesheet had already been filed by that time.The court relied upon Sanjay Dutt vs State through CBI (1994) 5 SCC 410 wherein the Apex held, “The "indefeasible right" of the accused to be released on bail in accordance-with Section 20 (4)(bb) of the TADA Act read with Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in default of completion of the investigation and filing of the challan within the time allowed, as held in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur is a right which enures to, and is enforceable by the accused only from the time of default till the filing of the challan and it does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan being filed.”It also relied on Bikramjit Singh vs State of Punjab.Case Title: Robinjeet Singh Alias Mota v. State of HaryanaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 89Appearances: Pratham Sethi, Advocate for the appellant P.P. Chahar, Sr. DAG, HaryanaClick Here To Read/Download Order

Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Default Bail In UAPA Case

Aiman J. Chishti

Tags