Summary
Only the designated Special Court, or the Sessions Court acting in its absence, could extend the UAPA investigation period beyond 90 days; State-police investigation did not confer that power on the Magistrate. The accused’s timely default-bail application survived its erroneous dismissal and the subsequent charge-sheet. The Court granted default bail, recognising its protection under Article 21, while preserving lawful arrest or re-arrest on cogent grounds.
Issues
- Whether a Magistrate could extend time under the UAPA where State police conducted the investigation.
- Whether erroneous rejection of a timely default-bail application and later filing of the charge-sheet extinguished the right.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(1)(d) and 43-D(2), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967Identified the competent court for extension of investigation from 90 to 180 days. (¶¶ 13, 20, 21, 29)
- Sections 10, 13, 16 and 22, National Investigation Agency Act, 2008Held scheduled offences exclusively triable by Special Courts, including State-investigated offences, with Sessions Court jurisdiction in the absence of designation. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
- Section 167(2), first proviso, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Enforced default bail sought before the charge-sheet despite erroneous dismissal of the application. (¶¶ 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaRecognised the default-bail entitlement, on fulfilment of statutory conditions, as part of the procedure safeguarding personal liberty. (¶ 29)
Held
- All UAPA offences, including those investigated by State police and those carrying shorter sentences, fall within the Special Court’s exclusive jurisdiction under the NIA Act scheme. Such a court can take cognizance without committal. In the absence of a designated Special Court, the Sessions Court exercises the statutory jurisdiction. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
- The Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to extend the investigation period under Section 43-D(2)(b). Section 10’s preservation of State investigative powers did not displace the Special Court’s exclusive judicial authority. The order setting aside the Magistrate’s extension was correct. (¶¶ 20, 21, 29)
- An accused who invokes default bail after expiry of the applicable period, before the charge-sheet, and offers to furnish bail avails the right even if the application is not decided or is wrongly rejected. A written application is not indispensable. Subsequent filing cannot defeat the right already invoked. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
- The High Court reversed the material dates: the first application was made on or before 25 February 2019 and the charge-sheet filed on 26 March 2019. A later repeat application did not erase the earlier timely invocation. Default bail protects a fundamental right under Article 21 when the statutory conditions are fulfilled. (¶ 29)
Result
Appeal allowed and High Court judgment set aside. Appellant entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) as modified by Section 43-D. Arrest or re-arrest on cogent grounds and independent regular-bail consideration remain available; arrest in another case is unaffected.