The main legal point established in the judgment is that once an application for extension of the investigation period is allowed, the accused would be entitled to default bail only if the charge sheet has not been filed after the extended period.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 impugning the order dated 10.06.2016 passed by the District and Sessions Judge (Special Judge, NIA) in RC-14/2015/NIA/DLI arising from an FIR under Section 125 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 18, 18-B, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [in short the “UA (P) Act”] whereby the application for grant of bail under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant herein was arrested on 05.02.2016. He remained in police custody remand and thereafter, was remanded to judicial custody. Admittedly, the respondent sought extension of the period of investigation of the appellant beyond the period of 90 days to 180 days, by filing an application which was supported with a report of the Public Prosecutor under Section 43D (2) (b) of the UA (P) Act. It is also not in dispute that the Special Judge vide his order dated 29.04.2016 extended the period of investigation and directed the accused/appellant herein to be kept in judicial custody and produced before the Special Court on 27.05.2016.

3. Thereafter, on 27.05.2016, the appellant was produced before the Special Court when the NIA had sought another extension of judicial custody of 30 days; which was granted by the Special Court and the appellant was directed to be kept in judicial custody and produced on 10.06.2016. On the next date, the appellant contended that he was entitled to the default bail as the statutory period of 90 days for filing charge-sheet had expired. The contention was rejected by the Special Court, which has led to the filing of the present appeal.

4. It is the case of the appellant herein that on 27.05.2016, the extended period of detention for investigation had expired. The respondent neither filed the charge-sheet nor sought extension of the period of investigation, and only sought extension of judicial remand, which was granted by order dated 27.05.2016 till 10.06.2016. It is, thus, contended that the appellant was entitled to default bail as on 27.05.2016. In this background, an application under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. was filed, seeking bail which was dismissed by an order dated 10.06.2016.

5. In this appeal, two grounds have been raised; firstly, that the impugned order is contrary to the settled law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602; and secondly, ground (b) mentioned in the appeal which reads as under:

“(b). Because, it is, respectfully submitted that the learned trial court has badly failed to appreciate that on 29.04.2016 the period of detention for investigation was extended till 27.05.2016 and from 27.07.2016 till 10.06.2016 neither the charge sheet was filed nor the period of detention for investigation was further extended and as such an indefeasible right to be released on bail under section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure accrued in favour of the appellant and he availed of the remedy by moving an application for grant of bail.”

6. Mr.Jawahar Raja, learned counsel for the appellant contends that by order of 29.04.2016 while the Special Judge allowed the application filed by the respondent/NIA under Section 43D (2) (b) of the UA (P) Act seeking extension of the period of detention beyond 90 days, the Special Judge had directed the accused/appellant to be kept in judicial custody and be produced before Court on 27.05.2016. On 27.05.2016 the judicial custody of the appellant was extended up to 10.06.2016. It is further submitted that neither on 27.05.2016 nor 10.06.2016, an application for further extension of period of investigation was filed and, thus, further detention was illegal and the appellant was entitled to default bail.

7. Mr.Sanjay Jain, learn