[BAIL] Questions & Answers By Justice V. Ramkumar- Default Bail -PART-VI

Q.26 Whether it is for the Magistrate or for the Special Court to extend the time for filing the charge-sheet for the period from 90 days to 180 days under Section 43 D (2) (b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA” for short) ? Ans. The Magistrate does not have the power to extend the time for filing the charge-sheet with regard to a scheduled offence under the UAPA. Such extension can be done only by the Special Court or, if there is no designated Special Court, then by the Court of Session, whether the investigation is conducted by the National Investigation Agency (“NIA” for short) or by any of the investigating agencies of the State Government. (Vide para 21 of Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No. 667/ 2020 (SC) – 3 Judges – Rohinton F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, K. M. Joseph - JJ; Ashruff v. State of Kerala 2010 (4) KLT 558 = 2010 (4) KHC 484 = 2011 Cri.L.J. 1021- VRK - J. Q.27 In a case involving a scheduled offence under the UAP Act, on the expiry of 90 days, the accused makes an oral application for default bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. Is he entitled to default bail in the following situations –a) Even though the charge-sheet is not filed on the date of the oral application, during the pendency of the application the charge-sheet is filed on the 91st day. b) During the pendency of the oral application, the Public Prosecutor files an application for extension of remand on the 91st day stating that further time for completing the investigation is necessary. c) The charge-sheet is not filed on the date of the oral application and the Special Judge grants the application for three days’ time filed by the Public Prosecutor for filing a petition for extension of the remand. d) On the 90th day of remand the Public Prosecutor files an application for extension of the remand. Ans. The accused is entitled to default bail in situations (a), (b) and (c), but is not entitled to default bail in situation (d). This is because, on the expiry of 90 days the accused had become entitled to the indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. and any application either for time or for filing remand extension petition beyond the statutory period of 90 days, cannot defeat the said right of the accused. But, in the case of situation (d), the petition for extension of remand was filed before the expiry of 90 days and, therefore, the accused cannot claim default bail in that situation. (Vide para 28 of Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 616 = 2020 KHC 6583 – 3 Judges – Rohinton F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, K. M. Joseph - JJ). Part 5: [BAIL] Questions & Answers By Justice V. Ramkumar-Default Bail-PART-VPart 4: [BAIL] Questions & Answers By Justice V. Ramkumar-Default Bail-PART-IVPart 3: [BAIL] Questions & Answers By Justice V. Ramkumar-Default Bail-PART-IIIPart 2: [BAIL] Questions & Answers By Justice V. Ramkumar-Default Bail-PART-IIPart 1: [BAIL] Questions & Answers By Justice V. Ramkumar-Default Bail-PART-I

[BAIL] Questions & Answers By Justice V. Ramkumar- Default Bail -PART-VI

Justice V Ramkumar

Tags