Point of Law: Article 21 which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty is considered to be Sacrosanct of our Constitution. The State has an obligation to follow fair, just and reasonable procedure prior to depriving any person this right guaranteed under Article 21.

ORDER :

These writ petitions are filed by the accused persons in FIR No.RC-35/2020/NIA/DLI pending before the Special N.I.A. Court, Bangalore (CCH-50) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 15, 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 333, 332, 436, 427 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, arising out of Crime No.229/2020 of Kadugondanahalli Police Station (hereinafter referred to as "the K.G.Halli P.S.") Bengaluru, challenging the order dated 03.11.2020 passed by the said court on an application filed by the respondent -National Investigating Agency under first proviso to Section 43-D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short "the Act of 1967") seeking extension of time for completion of investigation and the order dated 05.01.2021 passed by the said court rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") seeking statutory/default bail.

2. These cases are argued together and submitted for decision as one case.

3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records are:

The K.G.Halli Police, Bengaluru City have registered a case against 16 named persons and others for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 333, 332, 436, 427 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Subsequently the offences under the Act of 1967 were also invoked in the said case and thereafterwards the investigation was taken over by the respondent -Agency and a case was registered in FIR No.RC-35/2020/NIA/DLI.

4. During the course of investigation, the petitioners were arrested on 12.08.2020 and on the very same day, they were remanded to custody. Since the respondent Agency, which had taken over the investigation in the case, could not complete the investigation within the stipulated period of 90 days, an application under the first proviso to Section 43-D(2)(b) of the Act of 1967 was filed seeking extension of time by a further period of 90 days for completing the investigation and filing a final report. The said application was filed on 03.11.2020. The period of 90 days from the date of the petitioners' remand was to expire on 09.11.2020. The trial court on receipt of an application from the respondent seeking extension of time for completion of investigation, passed orders on the said application on the very same day i.e., on 03.11.2020.

5. The petitioners thereafter filed an application under Section 167(2) of the Code before the trial court on 11.11.2020 on the ground that the charge sheet was not filed by the respondent -Agency within the period of 90 days from the date of remand and accordingly they had prayed for grant of statutory bail for the default of the prosecution in not filing the charge sheet. The said application was heard and disposed of on 05.01.2021 on the ground that on the application filed by the prosecution under the first proviso to Section 43-D(2)(b) of the Act of 1967, the court had already extended the time for completion of the investigation by a further period of 90 days and therefore, the petitioners were not entitled for the relief of default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders dated 3.11.2020 and 5.1.2021, the petitioners have approached this court in these writ petitions.

6. Learned Counsel Sri.M.S.Shyam Sundar appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the application under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the Act of 1967 seeking extension of time for completion of investigation has been filed much prior to expiry of 90 days from the date of remand of the petitioners and therefore, the said application is premature. He submits that said application is filed only to deny the right to statutory bail of the petitioners. He also submitted that the petitioners we