Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
State Of NCT Of Delhi - Appellant
Versus
Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @Lovely - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2024 (Arising Out Of SLP(Crl.) No.2503 of 2021)
Decided on : 03-01-2024
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Section 45D – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 167(2) – Default bail – Grant of – FIR registered for offences under Sections 13/18/20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 201/120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, 1959 – Period for granting extension of investigation could not be extended in a casual manner – High Court committed error in allowing petition and granting default bail to respondent – Sanction under Section 45(2) of UAPA was awaited from GNCT Delhi and sanction under Section 39 of Arms Act was to be obtained after results from FSL was received – Reason mentioned in impugned order that application had been filed for extension without any valid basis as sanction had already been granted, was not correct – After completing investigation, Police report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. had already been submitted prior to last date of extended period – Nature of offence involved terrorist activities having not only Pan India impact but also impact on other enemy States – Matter should not have been taken so lightly – Impugned Order passed by High Court set aside. (Paras 4, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
State of NCT of Delhi is in appeal assailing correctness of Order dated 11.02.2021 passed by High Court of Delhi granting default bail to respondent under Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Findings of Court:
Public Prosecutor had mentioned in request that major investigation of case had been completed and draft charge-sheet had been prepared. However, for want of remaining sanctions and FSL report some more time was required for completing investigation.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Leave granted.
2. The State of NCT of Delhi1[GNCTD] is in appeal assailing the correctness of the order dated 11.02.2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi granting default bail to the respondent under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732[CrPC].
3. Relevant facts for appropriate application of this controversy are briefly stated here under:
3.1. A First Information Report3[FIR] No.154 of 2020 was registered on 16.06.2020 with Police Station, Special Cell, New Delhi against the respondent for offences under Sections 13/18/20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 19674[UAPA], Sections 201/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 18605[IPC], Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 19596[The Arms Act]. Pursuant to the said FIR, the respondent was arrested on 18.06.2020.
3.2. He was initially remanded to Police Custody for a period of three days and thereafter to Judicial Custody and has since been in Mandoli Jail, New Delhi. The period of 90 days expired on 15th September, 2020. Before the expiry of the said period on the request of the Investigating Officer7[IO] , the time for investigation was extended by order dated 11.09.2020 for a further period of two months till 11.11.2020. The investigation was not complete till 11.11.2020 and no Police report under section 173(2) CrPC was filed.
3.3. Before the expiry of the extended period of investigation which was valid until 11.11.2020, the Public Prosecutor moved another application dated 07.11.2020 requesting for further extension of time for investigation for a period of 30 days as per the provisions contained in section 43D (2) (b) of UAPA. The reasons given for moving the said application were manifold which are noted as follows:
ii) FSL results of arms recovered from accused persons were also awaited; and
iii) Sanction under section 39 of the Arms Act was to be obtained.
3.4. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court on 10.11.2020 and the period of investigation was further extended till 30.11.2020. In the said order of 10.11.2020, although all the reasons mentioned in the application dated 07.11.2020 seeking extension of the period of investigation were mentioned but in the operative portion, the Trial Court noted that the extension had been sought on the ground of obtaining mandatory sanction which was still pending before the GNCT Delhi and had accordingly granted the extension till 30.11.2020. The investigation has since been completed and Police report under section 173(2) CrPC was submitted on 26.11.2020 before the expiry of the period of extension for concluding the investigation up to 30.11.2020.
3.5. The respondent moved an application on 11.11.2020 itself under section 167 of the CrPC for release on bail. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 17.11.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred a petition under section 482 CrPC for setting aside the order dated 11.09.2020 and 10.11.2020 which was registered as Crl. M.C. No.2312 of 2020. This petition has since been allowed by the impugned order giving rise to the present appeal.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the High Court committed an error in allowing the petition and granting default bail to the respondent. In this connection, the High Court had relied upon the judgment in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, (1994) 4 SCC 602 wherein this Court was dealing with the provisions of section 20(4) (bb) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 19879[TADA] and had observed that the period for granting extension of investigation could not be extended in a casual manner for reasons other than those mentioned in the above noted provision which stated that it could be for completion of investigation only.
5. Reliance placed upon the said judgment in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (supra) by t
Default bail – Period for granting extension of investigation could not be extended in a casual manner – Nature of offence must also be considered.
Extension of period of investigation – Magistrate would not be competent to consider request and only competent authority to consider such request would be Court as specified in proviso in Section 43....
Right to life and liberty is one of integral part of Constitution of India and it is the most sacred Fundamental Right – Custody of people in name of various enactments and without adhering to prompt....
In cases involving UAPA, a valid extension of investigation period negates the right to default bail, contingent on statutory compliance.
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC is a fundamental right, requiring prompt investigation and adherence to procedural safeguards for extensions beyond 90 days.
Extension of time for filing chargesheet must be based on valid grounds; if the investigation is complete, the right to default bail accrues.
The main legal point established is that the extension of the investigation period without notifying the accused violates the principles of natural justice, and the accused is entitled to default bai....
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is extinguished once a charge-sheet is filed; extensions beyond 90 days must follow proper procedures and be conducted by appropriate judicial a....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
