In cases involving UAPA, a valid extension of investigation period negates the right to default bail, contingent on statutory compliance.

JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

1. Heard Ms. Priyanka Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent.

2. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the NIA Act”), calling in question the legality, propriety and correctness of the orders dated 07.10.2025 and 17.10.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NIA Act), North Bastar, Kanker (hereinafter referred to as “the Special Judge”) in connection with FIR No. 16/2022 registered at Police Station Amabeda, District Kanker, for alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 for short, ‘Arms Act’) as well as Sections 17, 18-A, 19, 23, 38(2) and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, ‘UAPA’).

3. By order dated 07.10.2025, the learned Special Judge allowed the application preferred by the Investigating Officer seeking extension of time for completion of investigation from 90 days to 180 days in terms of Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA. Thereafter, by order dated 17.10.2025, the learned Special Judge rejected the application filed by the appellant seeking statutory/default bail under Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the BNSS”).

4. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has approached this Court contending that the impugned orders suffer from patent illegality and material irregularity. It is urged that the extension of time granted under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA was mechanical and contrary to the mandatory requirements of law, and consequently, the rejection of the appellant’s application for default bail under Section 187 of the BNSS has resulted in a serious infraction of the appellant’s indefeasible right to personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the present appellant, Ramesh Mandavi, is named as an accused in FIR No. 16/2022 registered at Police Station Amabeda, District Kanker, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 506 of the IPC; Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act; and Sections 17, 18-A, 19, 23, 38(2), 39(2) and 40 of the UAPA.

5.1. As per the prosecution, the appellant is alleged to have been associated with certain unlawful and extremist activities connected with banned Naxalite organisations and to have facilitated or supported activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of the country. The investigation in the aforesaid FIR was stated to be continuing at the time of his arrest.

5.2. The appellant, however, is stated to be a resident of Village Kokvar (Arra). It is not in dispute that he has earlier served as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Arra for a period of approximately ten years and as Ward Panch of Kokvar for about five years. It is further borne out from the record that he had contested the 2023 Vidhan Sabha elections. He is stated to be a permanent resident of the village and claims to have no criminal antecedents.

5.3. According to the prosecution, on 16.07.2025 at about 3:00 AM, a team comprising personnel of the District Reserve Guard (DRG) along with local police apprehended the appellant from his