2026 Supreme(SC) 1149

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, JJ
State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan @ Moin Mistri – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4469 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 12932 of 2024)

Investigation is the exclusive domain of police; courts cannot declare it complete based on partial statements. Sanction under Section 45 of UAPA is required for taking cognizance, not for filing the charge sheet, and forensic data analysis is an essential part of the investigation process.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167(2) - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 43D and 45 - Constitution of India - Article 21 - The right to default bail is not merely a statutory right under the first proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code, but is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, which accrues when the investigating agency fails to file a charge sheet within the prescribed or extended statutory period. (Paras 7, 14)

(B) Sanction for prosecution - The requirement of producing sanction under Section 45 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is mandatory for the court to take cognizance of an offence and is not a prerequisite for the filing of a charge sheet. The process of obtaining sanction is separate from the stage of investigation; thus, a charge sheet filed without sanction is not incomplete, and delay in obtaining sanction does not entitle the accused to default bail if the final report is filed within the stipulated time. (Paras 27, 28)

(C) Scope and Domain of Investigation - The investigation of a crime is the exclusive domain of the police, and it is not within the jurisdiction of the court to decide when an investigation should stop or to curtail the statutory powers of the investigating agency. Analyzing forensic data, verifying bank statements, and collating evidence are integral parts of the investigation process and cannot be performed after the filing of the charge sheet. A statement by the prosecution that there is "enough evidence to file a charge sheet" cannot be interpreted as a conclusion that the investigation is complete. (Paras 30, 32, 33)

Facts of the case:
Accused persons were arrested for alleged anti-national activities and charged under special legislation and the penal code. The investigating agency sought and was granted two extensions of time by the trial court to file the charge sheet beyond the statutory 90-day period, citing the need to retrieve electronic evidence and obtain government sanctions. The accused applied for default bail, which the trial court rejected. The High Court subsequently set aside the second extension as illegal, reasoning that sanction is only required for cognizance and the investigation was already complete, thereby granting default bail to the accused.

Findings of Court:
The second extension of time granted to the investigating agency was legal and valid. The High Court committed a serious error by interpreting a solitary statement in the prosecution's application as an admission that the investigation was complete. The court found that the analysis of scientific data and financial records is a necessary part of the investigation that must be completed prior to filing the final report.

Issues: Whether the grant of a second extension of time to file a charge sheet for analyzing forensic data and awaiting sanction was illegal, and whether such an extension deprived the accused of their indefeasible right to default bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since sanctions under the special statute are required for taking cognizance and not for the filing of the charge sheet, and because the analysis of forensic data is a core part of the investigation, the trial court's extension was justified. The judiciary cannot interfere with the statutory right of the police to investigate unless there is a statutory bar or exceptional facts; the investigation is deemed complete only when the final report is submitted, regardless of whether the sanction for prosecution has been obtained.

Result: Appeal allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside, the trial court's order granting the extension is held legal and valid, and the application for default bail is dismissed.