UAPA | Error In Order Extending Time For Investigation No Ground For Default Bail When Chargesheet Has Been Filed : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently set aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated May 12, 2023, for granting default bail under Unlawful Activities (Prevention Act), 1967 (UAPA) on grounds that the accused persons should benefit from default bail in the absence of lack of competent order whereby time was extended for the investigation agency to file chargesheet. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale observed that although the High Court was right in holding that the order for extension was passed by a Court which was not jurisdictionally competent, however, since the application for default bail was preferred 4 months after the chargesheet was filed, no such right sustained.It held: The benefit of default bail can only be conferred before a chargesheet is filed, which was not applicable in this case. Therefore, the High Court had wrongly granted such benefit to the accused-Respondents by blatantly ignoring the fact of presentation of chargesheet being much prior in time to the application for default bail."Facts of the case As per the brief facts, a bomb blast occurred on a motorcycle in Jalalabad (Fazlikha) on September 15, 2021. Pursuant to this, an FIR no. 205 was registered the next day of the incident under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908; Sections 13, 15, 17, 18, 18B, 20 of the UAPA and Sections 21, 29, 61-85 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.When the police officers were informed that the accused persons could be apprehended if the house of one Tarlok Singh was raided, an FIR no.181 was lodged on this account under Sections 212 and 216 of the IPC and Sections 18 and 19 of the UAPA. Subsequently, Jaswant Singh @ Shinda Baba and Balwant Singh @ Bant, Ranjit Singh @ Gora, Manjit Singh @ Mana, Sukhwinder Singh @Sukha and Parveen Singh were arrested.On February 14, 2020, Jaswant Singh preferred a default bail application under Section 167(2) (Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This was rejected on the same day on the grounds that the investigating agency had already been granted an extension of 180 days to file the chargesheet vide an order dated January 31, 2022. Thereafter, no appeal was preferred against the February 14 order. Subsequently, the chargesheet was filed against all accused persons on April 29, 2022 and the case was committed to the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, on July 8, 2022. On September 2, 2022, a common application was filed seeking default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC read with Section 43D (Modified application of certain provisions of the Code) of the UAPA before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The said application came to be dismissed on September 5, 2022, with the reasoning that Challan was presented on April 29, 2022, much before the filing of this application. Appeal to the High Court An appeal was filed against this order, which was allowed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on grounds that only the Designated Special Court had valid jurisdiction to grant an extension of time to complete the investigation. However, in this case, the order was passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagraon, which was judicially incompetent to pass the order. The High Court stated that since the accused persons were in the face of no valid extensions of time being granted to the investigating agency, they were entitled to receive the benefit of default bail. Aggrieved by this, the State of Punjab has preferred an appeal in the present case. What did the Supreme Court say?The Supreme Court concurred with the order of the High Court to the extent that it observed that the extension of time to investigate was granted by a jurisdictionally incompetent court and therefore, the January 31, 2022 order was, thus, invalid. However, the Court stated that default bail application under Section 167(2) of CrPC read with Section 43D of UAPA is preferred at the stage before a chargesheet is filed. Referring to Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay (1994), the Court said: "The right to default bail accrues when the time of investigation or extended time is completed and yet no chargesheet has been filed and the said right sustains until the time that the chargesheet is filed in the concerned matter. The position of law has been clarified by the Courts of law time and again."In Sanjay Dutt's judgment, the Court observed: "The indefeasible right accruing to the accused in such a situation is enforceable only prior to the filing of the challan and it does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan being filed, if already not availed of. Once the challan has been filed, the question of grant of bail has to be considered and decided only with reference to the merits of the case under the provisions relating to grant of bail to an accused after the filing of the challan. The custody of the accused after the challan has been filed is not governed by...

UAPA | Error In Order Extending Time For Investigation No Ground For Default Bail When Chargesheet Has Been Filed : Supreme Court

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

UAPA | Error In Order Extending Time For Investigation No Ground For Default Bail When Chargesheet Has Been Filed : Supreme Court

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers