SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
REVATI MOHITE DERE, GAURI GODSE, JJ.
Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan @ Moin Mistri & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2023
Decided On : 15-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Hassnain Kazi a/w Ms. Shraddha Vahval, Mr. Zeeshan Kazi, Mr. Hafizuddin Kazi, Mr. Raeed Kazi, Mr. Saifan Shaikh and Mr. Athar Qureshi.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ashok P. Mundargi, Senior Advocate, Amicus Curiae, Mr. H.S. Venegavkar, PP a/w Mrs. P. P. Shinde APP.

Extension of time for filing chargesheet must be based on valid grounds; if the investigation is complete, the right to default bail accrues.

Headnote:(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167(2) - Extension of time for filing chargesheet - The court held that extension granted on the ground of awaiting sanction was illegal as the investigation was complete and ample evidence was available for filing the chargesheet - The right to default bail accrues when the time for filing the chargesheet expires without it being filed - The appellants were entitled to default bail as the extension was vitiated. (Paras 25, 39)

(B) Legal principles - The court emphasized that extension of time must be based on valid grounds, and not on flimsy reasons that infringe upon the accused's right to seek default bail. (Paras 39, 40)

Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged the extension of time granted to the prosecution for filing the chargesheet, arguing that the extension was based on an invalid ground of awaiting sanction, while the investigation was complete and evidence was available. The appellants filed for default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC after the initial extension was granted.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the extension of time was granted illegally, as the prosecution had completed the investigation and had sufficient evidence to file the chargesheet. The appellants were entitled to default bail due to the invalid extension.

Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the extension of time for filing the chargesheet was legal and whether the appellants were entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that an extension of time can only be granted for valid reasons related to the completion of the investigation, and since the investigation was complete, the extension was illegal, thus entitling the appellants to default bail.

Result: The appeal was allowed, and the orders granting extension of time and rejecting default bail were quashed.

JUDGMENT :

Gauri Godse, J.

1. Although the arguments were concluded and judgment was reserved on 13th December 2023, we listed the matter for further hearing on a praecipe moved by the learned Public Prosecutor as he wanted to address this Court on certain issues, including pointing out the latest decision of the Apex Court. Accordingly, we heard the learned counsels for the respective parties on 7th March 2024, 25th April 2024 and 2nd May 2024.

2. This appeal is preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (“NIA Act”) to challenge the order dated 18th January 2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge (MCOCA/POTA/TADA/NIA) and Additional Sessions Judge Greater Mumbai in NIA RA No. 946 of 2022 in Crime No. 19 of 2022, by which the court granted an extension of time of 15 days to file the chargesheet. By way of an amendment, the appellants have also challenged the order dated 20th January 2023, by which the learned Judge rejected the appellants’ application for grant of bail under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’).

3. By an order dated 18th January 2023, the Trial Court granted an extension of 15 days to the prosecution to file the chargesheet on the ground that the prosecution was awaiting sanction from the appropriate Government.

4. For examining the grounds of challenge raised on behalf of the appellants, it is necessary to note the following dates as revealed from the roznama, applications filed by the parties and the orders passed below it:

    - 21st September 2022 :– FIR was registered with the ATS for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 121-A, 153-A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) and Sections 13(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (“ the UAPA”).

    - 22nd September 2022 : The appellants were arrested and produced before the Trial Court. By an order passed on the first remand application, the appellants were remanded to police custody for five days, i.e., until 26th September 2022.

    - 26th September 2022 :– Appellants were produced before the Trial Court. An order was passed on the second remand application, and police custody was granted till 3rd October 2022 on the ground that the prosecution required time for examining the electronic devices.

    - 3rd October 2022 :– Appellants were produced before the Trial Court. An order was passed on the third remand application, and the police custody of the appellants was extended up to 8th October 2022, again on the ground that time was required for examining the electronic devices.

    - 8th October 2022 : The appellants were produced before the Trial Court and were granted judicial custody until 20th October 2022.

    - 20th October 2022 :- The appellants were produced before the Trial Court through video conferencing (“VC”). An application was filed for extension of the appellants’ judicial custody. The matter was adjourned to 3rd November 2022 for the appearance of the accused through VC.

    - 3rd November 2022 :- The appellants were not produced before the Trial Court through VC. Judicial custody was extended till 17th November 2022.

    - 17th November 2022 :- Appellants were produced before the Trial Court through VC. Judicial custody was accordingly extended till 1st December 2022.

    - 1st December 2022 :- Roznama does not reflect that the appellants were produced before the Trial Court either physically or through VC. However, it appears that the appellants’ Judicial custody was extended till 14th December 2022.

    - 14th December 2022 :- Roznama does not reflect that the appellants were produced before the Trial Court either physically or through VC. However, it appears that the appellants’ Judicial custody was extended till 20th December 2022.

    - 17th December 2022:- Since the ninety days period for filing the chargesheet was to expire on 20th December 2022, the prosecution filed a Criminal Misc. Application No. 1710 of 2022 and prayed for extension of time to file the chargesheet on two grounds, i.e. (i) to retrieve a large amou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top