Filing a complete charge-sheet within the stipulated period is sufficient compliance, and no default bail can be granted if cognizance was taken later. The court also emphasized that technical objections raised during challenging times of the Covid-19 pandemic were of no consequence.

JUDGMENT :

Talwant Singh, J.

The appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 read with Section 167(2) and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been filed by appellant/Alemla Jamir, who is facing trial in case R.C. No. 26/2019 under Section 10, 13, 17, 18, 20 and 21 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UA(P) Act), registered at Police Station NIA (National Investigation Agency), Delhi.

2. In brief facts, it is mentioned that the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was travelling by air from Delhi to Dimapur, when she was detained at IGI Domestic Airport, Terminal-I on 17.12.2019 by the CISF for carrying cash of Rs. 72.00 lakhs as she could not explain the source of cash available with her. Intimation was sent to Income Tax Department and investigation started.

3. The appellant in her statement to the Officials had stated that the cash in question belonged to the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak-Muivah Faction), NSCN(IM) and she had received the cash from an associate of Mr. Muivah, General Secretary of NSCN (IM) at her residence and the same was to be handed over to Mr. Muivah at Dimapur, Nagaland. This information was passed on to the Special Cell and an FIR bearing No. 0228/2019 was registered by Delhi Police under the aforesaid provisions at Police Station : Special Cell for aiding and abetting NSCN(IM), which is a banned organization. The air tickets of the appellant were arranged on the direction of Mr. Muivah. The husband of the appellant is a relative of Mr. Muivah and he is a Steering Committee member of NSCN(IM) and was earlier Commander-in-Chief of the terrorist organization NSCN (IM). This money was to be used for carrying out terrorist operations and other terrorist activities in India.

4. Investigation was further handed over to NIA, which registered the above-mentioned RC under the relevant provisions. Ten days police custody remand was taken and thereafter the appellant was sent to judicial custody on 27.12.2019. The mandatory period of 90 days to complete the investigation had expired on 15.03.2020. On moving an application by the prosecution seeking extension of detention period, the extension was granted for 45 days. A further extension of 45 days was again granted vide order dated 21.04.2020.

5. Three days police custody remand of the appellant/accused vide order dated 20.05.2020 was given. The appellant has extended full cooperation during investigation.

6. The 180 days' investigation period was to expire on 14.06.2020; however, on 11.06.2020 the NIA filed charge-sheet in the matter and it was kept for consideration on 18.06.2020. Neither cognizance was taken on the said date nor the prosecution had asked for judicial custody remand of the appellant.

7. Neither the appellant nor her counsel was informed regarding the filing of the charge-sheet nor the link for the proceeding was sent to them. In fact, the appellant was sent to judicial custody on 14.06.2020. The prosecution was informed on 18.06.2020 regarding enormous discrepancies in the charge-sheet for which the prosecution sought two weeks' time for rectification and the matter was adjourned to 03.07.2020. On 20.06.2020, counsel for the appellant/accused moved an application for inspection of the case file but the same was not granted due to prevailing Covid-19 pandemic crisis. However, on 23.06.2020, last three pages of the charge-sheet were ordered to be shown to the counsel for the appellant.

8. It came to the knowledge of the appellant, while going through the papers so supplied, that investigation under Section 173 Cr. P.C. was still continuing and only an interim/part charge-sheet had been filed in Court. No cognizance of the charge-sheet, so filed, was taken until 03.07.2020 by the Court; much after the expiry of 180 days' period on 14.06.2020, so the appellant is entitled to statutory bail. The cognizance so taken is also without jurisdiction as the investigation was