The main legal point established is that the extension of the investigation period without notifying the accused violates the principles of natural justice, and the accused is entitled to default bail if the charge sheet is not filed within the stipulated time.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Solicitor General of India and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl.P.P. for the NIA.

2. In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 514 of 2022 challenge has been made to the order dated 06.05.2022 passed by Shri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned AJC-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Special (NIA/RNC-04/2021) corresponding to NIA Case RC-04/2021/NIA/RNC (ATS P.S. Case No. 01/ 2021), whereby and whereunder, the period of investigation has been extended from 90 days to 120 days.

3. In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 533 of 2022, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the order dated 10.05.2022 passed by Shri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned AJC-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 824/2022 arising out of Special (NIA/RNC-04/2021) by virtue of which the prayer for default bail u/s 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected.

4. Since the fate of Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 533 of 2022 is dependent on the outcome of Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 514 of 2022, we feel it expedient that Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 514 of 2022 be considered and disposed of at first.

5. It has been alleged that during investigation of Tandwa P.S. Case No. 132 of 2021, the informant had received an information that one Avinash Kumar in conspiracy with others was engaged in supplying arms and ammunitions to naxalites and other antisocial elements for which Sanha No. 08/2021 was registered. In order to verify such information a team was constituted and Avinash Kumar was apprehended. On his disclosure one Rishi Kumar was also apprehended and they had disclosed about demanding levy in the form of ammunition of 200 pieces for Insas Rifle. On 14.11.2021 recovery of ammunitions buried on the ground were made.

On the basis of the aforesaid allegations ATS P.S. Case No. 01/ 2021 was instituted. The investigation was taken over by the National Investigation Agency pursuant to the order of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 03.12.2001 and the F.I.R. was reregistered as RC-04/2021/NIA/RNC.

6. The appellant had earlier moved for anticipatory bail in A.B.P. No. 2282 of 2021 before the Court of learned AJC-XVI, Ranchi, but the same was subsequently withdrawn on 03.01.2022 as the investigation was taken over by the NIA. The appellant had again prayed for anticipatory bail in A.B.P. No. 13 of 2022 before the Special Court, NIA which became infructuous on account of the arrest of the appellant on 07.02.2022 and his subsequent remand to judicial custody on 08.02.2022.

7. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order dated 06.05.2022 is bad in law as the extension granted in investigation from 90 days to 120 days was behind the back of the appellant and in fact the appellant was caught unawares when he had filed the application for default bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. as such extension was already in place making such application redundant. He has submitted that the principles of natural justice signifies fundamental rules of judicial procedure and the appellant being the accused should have been noticed before any order detrimental to his interest was passed. Mr. Sinha has referred to Section 43(D)(2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (U.A.P. Act), 1967 which relates to applicability of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, subject to the modification as at (a) and (b) of the said provision. He has submitted that Section 20(4)(bb) of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act is in pari materia with Section 43(D)(2)(b) of U.A.P. Act and in such context he has referred to the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharastra reported in (1994) 4 SCC 602. Continuing further submission has been advanced that it is a settled principle of law that there should be fair play in criminal law and no order should be passed without giving a fair hearing to the party who will have an impact of the order passed by the C