The main legal point established is the entitlement to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the legislative mandate that offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 are to be tried exclusively by the Special Court.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1. This bunch of appeals consisting of aforementioned four appeals has been filed by the appellants namely Satish Kumar and Pankaj Bansal for the grant of bail in case FIR No. 246 dated 18.10.2014 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 392 I.P.C and 25 of Arms Act (later on added sections 120-B I.P.C, Section 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 25(6)(7)(8) of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station, City Faridkot). It is pertinent to mention here that CRA-D No. 28/2021 (Satish Kumar vs. State of Punjab and Another) and CRA-D No. 89/2021 (Pankaj Bansal vs. State of Punjab and Another) have been filed against the impugned orders dated 7.12.2020 and 8.1.2021 wherein their prayer for the grant of bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot. So far as rest of the two appeals are concerned i.e. CRA-D No. 57/2021 (Satish Kumar vs. State of Punjab) and CRA-D No. 104/2021 (Pankaj Bansal vs. State of Punjab), these have been filed against the impugned orders dated 7.10.2020 and 14.9.2020 wherein the prayer of the appellants for the grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot. Out of the aforementioned four appeals, firstly we are dealing with CRA-D No. 28/2021 (Satish Kumar vs. State of Punjab) and CRAD No. 89/2021 (Pankaj Bansal vs. State of Punjab), which pertain to the grant of default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. All these four appeals arise out of the same FIR. The issue underlying these two appeals is the same as both deal with the bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. which if found to have been accrued, becomes an indefeasible right of the accused. For brevity the facts have been culled out from CRA-D-28-2021.

2. Adumbrated facts of the case, FIR No. 246 dated 18.10.2014 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 392 I.P.C and 25 of Arms Act (later on added sections 120-B I.P.C, Sections 16 & 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 25(6)(7)(8) of Arms Act, 1959), registered at Police Station, City Faridkot. The investigation having been completed, challan was filed on 17.1.2015 in the court of J.M.I.C. Faridkot and the charges were framed on 8.4.2016. However, appellant Satish Kumar was arrayed as an accused in this FIR vide DDR No. 32 dated 18.8.2020 and he was arrested on 20.8.2020. Section 16 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 25(6)(7)(8) of Arms Act, 1959 vide DDR No. 8 dated 25.8.2020 and Section 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 vide DDR No. 38 dated 19.10.2020 were later on added in the FIR. Similarly accused Pankaj Bansal was arrested on 21.8.2020. Aggrieved by their arrest, appellants preferred the bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, which were declined by the court vide order dated 7.10.2020 & 14.9.2020. As the appellants were arrayed as accused later on, hence, the investigating agency filed their supplementary challan under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in the court of J.M.I.C. Faridkot on 20.10.2020. The appellants preferred petitions for grant of bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot on the premise that they are in custody since the last 95 days and as the statutory period of 90 days is already over and the investigating agency has failed to file the challan in the Special Court thus there accrued an indefeasible right in their favour under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and therefore, they deserved to be released on bail. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot after hearing the parties and perusing the record declined the same by observing that although offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is triable by the Special Court but since before presentation of supplementary challan against the appellant, the main case was already pending in the said court o