Case Note & Summary
The case involved appeals by several accused under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015, challenging the legality of the Special Court's orders extending the investigation period beyond 90 days without their presence. The FIR was registered on 15th October 2020, and the accused were arrested on various dates. The Special Court allowed extensions for investigation based on reports from the Public Prosecutor, which were contested by the appellants on grounds of procedural violations. The appellants argued that they were not informed of the reports or present during the hearings, violating their rights under the law as established in previous Supreme Court rulings. The respondent, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, contended that the accused had no right to be heard at this stage and that the absence of the accused did not prejudice their case. The court analyzed the legal framework surrounding default bail and the requirements for extending investigation periods, ultimately finding that the Special Court's actions infringed upon the accused's rights. The court emphasized that the right to default bail is a fundamental right linked to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The decision concluded that the appellants were entitled to default bail due to the procedural irregularities in the extension process.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Default Bail - Right to Default Bail - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 167 - The accused is entitled to default bail if the investigation is not completed within the statutory period. The court held that the Special Court's failure to procure the presence of the accused during the extension hearing violated the legal mandate, thus entitling the accused to default bail (Paras 17-22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Court's extension of the investigation period without procuring the presence of the accused violated legal mandates.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the Special Court's failure to procure the presence of the accused during the extension hearing violated legal mandates, entitling the accused to default bail. The court emphasized that the right to default bail is a fundamental right linked to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Law Points
- Default bail
- extension of investigation period
- right to be informed
- presence of accused
- procedural irregularity
