Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Give Preference To Default Bail Application Filed On Same Day As Application To Extend Time For Investigation

The Supreme Court on January 8) dismissed a Special Leave Petition, wherein the accused person had challenged the order of the Karnataka High Court denying him statutory bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). By the said order, the High Court affirmed the trial court's deciison to give precedence to the investigation agency's application for extension of time to investigate over the accused's application seeking default bail when both applications were filed on the same day. 

In the SLP, the issue before the Court was: whether default bail application filed under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure could take precedence over an application for an extension of time to file a chargesheet under Section 43D(2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) if both are filed on same day.

The Counsel for the accused, Senior Advocate Dr. Aditya Sondhi, argued that it was the duty of the Court to inform the accused person of his right to default bail on the 90th day on which the investigation agency was supposed to complete the investigation. He argued that since on the completion of the 90 day period stipulated under the UAPA, the investigation agency could not complete the investigation and did not file a report for further investigation, the right of the accused to get statutory bail "crystallizes" unless the same is forfeited. 

In this case, the accused was arrested on November 7, 2022, relating to the allegation of having conspiracy in a political murder. The National Investigation Agency (NIA), the investigation agency in this case, however, failed to complete the investigation within 90 days as stipulated in Section 43D(2) of UAPA. However, the Trial Court extended the custody of the accused upon an oral request by the NIA without the report by the NIA. Subsequently, when the NIA applied for an extension, the accused also filed an application seeking default bail on the same day.

The trial court decided both applications together and allowed the application of NIA while dismissing the accused person's application.

The accused challenged the order before the Karnataka High Court, arguing that the trial court should have informed him of his right to apply for bail. However, the High Court rejected the petition stating that the trial court had found that the NIA had valid reasons for not being able to file chargesheet within 90 days.

A bench of Justices M.M Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal clarified that when the bail application and the application requesting for extension of time for further investigation are filed, the Court will have to consider both together.

Stating that the Court is not inclined to consider the SLP, the Court ordered: "Prepare a regular bail and we will consider. We are not inclined to consider. However, we leave the question of law open."

Case Details: MOHAMMED JABIR v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY., SLP(Crl) No. 11581/2024

Appearances: Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR (Petitioner) and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju (for NIA)

Click Here To Read/Download Order