Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Gautam P. Navlakha, a 69-year-old scholar, writer, and civil rights activist, was arrested on 28/10/2018 in connection with FIR No. 4 of 2018 registered at Vishrambag Police Station, Pune, which was later re-registered as RC 01/2020/NIA/Mum by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on 24/01/2020 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The appellant filed an application for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) read with Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA before the NIA Special Court, which was rejected on 12/07/2020. The appellant then appealed to the Bombay High Court. The key legal issue was whether the appellant was entitled to default bail on the ground that the charge sheet was not filed within the prescribed period of 90 days from the date of arrest. The appellant argued that he was arrested on 28/10/2018 and the charge sheet was filed on 27/01/2020, which was beyond 90 days. The NIA contended that the 90-day period should be computed from the date of registration of the FIR by the NIA on 24/01/2020, and that the period of house arrest ordered by the Delhi High Court should be excluded. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 167(2) CrPC and Section 43D(2)(b) UAPA, and held that the relevant date for computing the 90-day period is the date of arrest, not the date of FIR registration. The court also held that the period of house arrest is a form of custody and cannot be excluded. Since the charge sheet was filed beyond 90 days from the date of arrest, the appellant's right to default bail had accrued. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed that the appellant be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the NIA Special Court may impose.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Default Bail - Section 167(2) CrPC read with Section 43D(2)(b) UAPA - The appellant was arrested on 28/10/2018 and the NIA filed a charge sheet on 27/01/2020, which was within 90 days from the date of registration of the FIR by NIA on 24/01/2020. However, the court held that the relevant date for computing the 90-day period is the date of arrest, not the date of FIR registration. Since the charge sheet was filed beyond 90 days from arrest, the appellant became entitled to default bail. The court rejected the NIA's argument that the period of house arrest should be excluded. (Paras 1-35) B) Criminal Procedure - Default Bail - Section 167(2) CrPC - The right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is an indefeasible right that accrues upon the failure of the investigating agency to file a charge sheet within the prescribed period. The court held that the appellant had completed 90 days in custody from the date of arrest, and the charge sheet was not filed within that period, entitling him to default bail. (Paras 1-35) C) Criminal Procedure - Default Bail - Section 167(2) CrPC - The court clarified that the period of house arrest ordered by the Delhi High Court on 28/08/2018 is not to be excluded from the computation of the 90-day period for default bail. The appellant was in custody from the date of arrest, and the house arrest was a form of custody. (Paras 1-35)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC read with Section 43D(2)(b) UAPA on the ground that the charge sheet was not filed within the prescribed period of 90 days.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 12/07/2020 passed by the NIA Special Court is set aside. The appellant is directed to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the NIA Special Court may impose.
Law Points
- Default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC
- Applicability of Section 43D(2)(b) UAPA for extension of investigation period
- Computation of 90-day period for default bail
- Right to default bail is indefeasible
- Charge sheet must be complete and valid to prevent default bail
