Case Note & Summary
The case involves two criminal appeals challenging a common order dated 28th June 2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA, Greater Mumbai, rejecting applications for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC filed by the appellants in Special Case No.414 of 2020. The appellants were arrested on 6th June 2018 in connection with FIR No.04/2018 registered at Vishrambaug Police Station, Pune, for offences under IPC and UAPA. The investigation initially sought extension of time to file charge-sheet under Section 43D(2) UAPA via applications at Exhibits-29 and 30. The Sessions Court granted extension on 2nd September 2018. The appellants challenged this order before the Bombay High Court, which set it aside on 24th October 2018, holding that the application was not a valid report by the Public Prosecutor. However, the Supreme Court, in SLP No.9199/2019, reversed the High Court's order on 13th February 2019, restoring the extension order, finding that the Public Prosecutor had applied his mind and there were compelling reasons. Meanwhile, the charge-sheet was filed on 15th November 2018, within the extended period. The appellants then filed applications for default bail, which were rejected by the trial court. The Bombay High Court, in the present appeals, upheld the rejection, noting that the Supreme Court's restoration of the extension order validated the extension, and since the charge-sheet was filed within the extended period, no indefeasible right to default bail arose. The court also noted that some appellants had already been granted bail by other courts. The appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 167(2) - Default Bail - Extension of Investigation Time - The appellants sought default bail on the ground that the initial application for extension of time was not a valid report under Section 43D(2) UAPA. The Supreme Court, however, restored the extension order holding that there was application of mind by the Public Prosecutor and compelling reasons. Since the charge-sheet was filed within the extended period, the right to default bail did not accrue. (Paras 4.13-4.13.2)
B) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 43D(2) - Extension of Time - Report of Public Prosecutor - The Supreme Court held that the second document (Exhibit-30) contained detailed grounds and endorsement of the Public Prosecutor, indicating application of mind. The infirmities in form did not entitle the accused to default bail when substance showed compliance. (Paras 4.13-4.13.1)
C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 167(2) - Default Bail - Effect of Filing Charge-Sheet - Once charge-sheet is filed within the extended period as per valid extension order, the right to default bail under Section 167(2) does not survive. The appellants' applications for default bail were rightly rejected. (Paras 4.9, 4.13.2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants are entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC read with Section 43D(2) UAPA when the Supreme Court had restored the extension order and charge-sheet was filed within the extended period.
Final Decision
Both criminal appeals are dismissed. The impugned order dated 28th June 2022 rejecting default bail applications is upheld.
Law Points
- Default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC
- Extension of time under Section 43D(2) UAPA
- Application of mind by Public Prosecutor
- Compelling reasons for extension
- Effect of Supreme Court restoration of extension order
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (7) 265
Criminal Appeal No.1208 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No.1272 of 2023
Anand Grover (Senior Advocate for Appellants in Appeal No.1208/2022), Yashodeep Deshmukh (Appointed Advocate for Appellant in Appeal No.1272/2023), Devang Vyas (Additional Solicitor General for NIA), Dr. A.A. Takalkar (APP for State)
Surendra P Gadling and Others (in Appeal No.1208/2022); Mahesh Raut (in Appeal No.1272/2023)
National Investigation Agency and State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against rejection of default bail applications under Section 167(2) CrPC in a case under UAPA and IPC.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC on the ground that the extension of time for investigation was invalid and charge-sheet was not filed within 90 days.
Filing Reason
The appellants were arrested on 6th June 2018; the investigation sought extension of time under Section 43D(2) UAPA; the Supreme Court restored the extension order; charge-sheet was filed on 15th November 2018; the appellants claimed default bail.
Previous Decisions
The Sessions Court granted extension on 2nd September 2018; Bombay High Court set it aside on 24th October 2018; Supreme Court restored it on 13th February 2019; trial court rejected default bail applications on 28th June 2022.
Issues
Whether the application for extension of time under Section 43D(2) UAPA was valid despite procedural irregularities?
Whether the appellants acquired an indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC after the Supreme Court restored the extension order and charge-sheet was filed within the extended period?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the initial extension application was not a valid report by the Public Prosecutor, and thus the extension was void, entitling them to default bail.
Respondent-NIA argued that the Supreme Court had upheld the extension, and charge-sheet was filed within the extended period, so no right to default bail accrued.
Ratio Decidendi
Once the Supreme Court restores the extension order under Section 43D(2) UAPA, the extension is valid, and if charge-sheet is filed within the extended period, no indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC arises.
Judgment Excerpts
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, there has been, as per the comparison of the two documents, an application of mind by the public prosecutor as well as an endorsement by him. The infirmities in the form should not entitle the Respondents (Appellants) to the benefit of a default bail, when in substance there was application of mind.
Thus, the Apex Court restored the Order dated 2nd September, 2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge thereby granting extension of time to file charge-sheet against the Appellants.
Procedural History
FIR registered on 8th January 2018; appellants arrested on 6th June 2018; extension application filed on 30th August 2018; extension granted on 2nd September 2018; appellants challenged extension in Bombay High Court which set it aside on 24th October 2018; State appealed to Supreme Court which restored extension on 13th February 2019; charge-sheet filed on 15th November 2018; default bail applications filed and rejected on 28th June 2022; present appeals filed.
Acts & Sections
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC): Section 167(2), Section 482
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA): Section 43D(2), Section 13, 16, 17, 18, 18-B, 20, 38, 39, 40
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 153A, 505(1)(b), 117, 120-B, 34
