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.

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 966

Click here to read/download judgment

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.