The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for an accused to avail of the right to be released on default bail within the specified period, failing which the right may be extinguished.

JUDGMENT

N.J. Jamadar, J. - The applicants-original applicant Nos.6 to 8 in Criminal Application No. 1458 of 2019, which was decided by this Court, alongwith Criminal Bail Application No.2024 of 2019 (Sudha Bharadwaj Vs. National Investigation Agency and Anr.) by judgment and order dated 1st December 2021 seek review of the said judgment, to the extent Criminal Application No.1458 of 2019 came to be rejected thereunder.

2. By the said judgment and order dated 1st December 2021, this Court was persuaded to allow Criminal Bail Application No. 2024 of 2021, preferred by Sudha Bharadwaj, the co-accused in NIA Special Case No. 871 of 2020, arising out of FIR No. 4 of 2018, initially registered with Vishrambag Police Station, for the offences punishable under sections 120B, 121, 121(A), 124(A), 153A, 505(1) (b) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the Penal Code') and sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18-B, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention Act). 1967 ('UAPA'). The applicant therein was ordered to be released on default bail.

3. The applicants assert that they are entitled to same relief as has been granted to the co-accused Sudha Bharadwaj.

4. The review application arises in the backdrop of the following facts :

(a) In the above-numbered crime, the applicants were arrested on 28th August 2018. Charge-sheet against the applicants and Sudha Bharadwaj, co- accused/applicant in Criminal Bail Application No.2024 of 2021 was fled on 21st February 2019.

(b) The applicants preferred an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune (Exh.169) on 21st June 2019 with the assertion that the applicants were in custody since 28th August 2018 and cognizance of the offence had not been taken. Since the applicants were in detention for well over 180 days, without cognizance having been taken by the competent Court, all applicants are entitled to be released on bail under the provisions of section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code') read with section 43-D(2) of the UAPA.

(c) The said application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by an order dated 5th September 2019. The applicants preferred Criminal Application No.1458 of 2019 with a prayer to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, dated 5th September 2019 and declaration that the learned Sessions Judge had no power to take cognizance of the offence and the said cognizance was bad in law and illegal.

(d) It would be contextually relevant to note that in Criminal Bail Application No.2024 of 2021, the applicant therein had assailed the extension of period for investigation under section 43D-(2) of the UAPA on the ground that the learned Judge who granted the extension on 26th November 2018 was not legally empowered to grant such extension and take cognizance of the offence.

(e) The applicant therein further contended that since the applicant had applied for release on default bail under section 167(2) of the Code, prior to the fling of the charge-sheet, the applicant had a right to be released on default bail and ought have been so released on 26th November 2018. It was further contended that even if the period of house arrest was excluded from consideration, the period of 90 days would have expired on 25th January 2019 and since the charge-sheet was fled on 21st February 2019, whilst the bail application of the applicant (Sudha Bharadwaj) was still pending on that day, the applicant ought to have been released on bail.

5. After an elaborate consideration and analysis of the governing provisions and precedents, this Court was persuaded to allow the Criminal Bail Application No.2024 of 2019 of the co- accused-applicant and reject the Criminal Application No.1458 of 2019 of the instant applicants.

6. We deem it appropriate to extract the observations in the concluding paragraphs of the said judgment, which read as under :

143 In the case at hand, with the declaration that the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Shri K.D. Vada