The fundamental right to default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. is granted to an accused person once the conditions are fulfilled, and the lack of mandatory prosecution sanction for UAPA offenses can lead to a lack of jurisdiction for assuming cognizance.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral) - The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for grant of default bail, under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., read with Section 43(D) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, (in short "UAPA") to the present bail petitioner.

2. In FIR No.140 of 04.07.2021, lodged at Police Station City-2 Khanna, District Khanna, offences constituted under Sections of 307, 332, 336, 379-B, 411, 34, 120-B, 473 of IPC, Section 25 of Arms Act, and, besides, under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, besides Sections 16, 17, 18 of UAPA, are embodied.

3. The learned counsels appearing before this Court, do not hold any dispute, with respect to the factum, that in respect of offences carried in the IPC, there may not be any necessity for any prior sanction, being meted by the competent authority, hence for enabling the Court concerned, to then assume valid jurisdiction or take cognizance thereons, whereas, when the apposite FIR, also embodies thereins, besides the offences in the IPC, also offences, under the UAPA, thereupon, as mandated in a judgment made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as 'Fakhrey Alam V. The State Of Uttar Pradesh', to which Criminal Appeal No.319 of 2021, is assigned, rather a dire statutory necessity is cast, upon the investigating officer concerned, to obtain the mandatorily enjoined prosecution sanction from the government concerned.

4. Moreover, the counsels appearing before this Court, do not also wrangle qua the factum, that when in the instant FIR offences, not only under the IPC, and, but also under the UAPA, besides under the Explosives Act, are embodied, thereupon, unless in respect of the UAPA offences hence prior sanction from the competent authority rather became obtained. Therefore any lack of the imperative sanction would result in the learned Court concerned, being barred from making valid assumptions of jurisdiction or taking cognizance in respect thereof, even if a conjoint charge-sheet, in respect of both IPC offences, and, also in respect of UAPA offences, becomes instituted before the learned Court concerned, by the investigating officer concerned, given hence the conjoint report being completely defective.

5. The learned State counsel, on instructions given to him, by ASI Jagdev Singh submits, that though the instant FIR became registered, on 04.07.2021, and, that a period of 90 days was to be computed therefrom, however the above tenure of 90 days elapsed, on 04.10.2021, but the investigating officer concerned, filed a report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., before the learned Judge concerned, with a minimal delay of about 4 days, inasmuch as, his filing it, on 08.10.2021. The above delay was may be condonable, as the total length or span of time, for a valid report with respect to UAPA offences, being filed is about 180 days, and, also was may be, irrespective of the fact, that the investigating officer concerned, did not move, an application hence asking for the requisite extension of time of about 90 days, beyond the period commencing on 04.10.2021, being meted to him, yet the afore non-askings cannot prima-facie be construed to be yet snatching the jurisdiction of the learned trial Judge concerned, to construe the afore minimal period of 4 days, to be a deemed extension of time, given it being in tandem with the total span of the extensions, as were askable, by the prosecutor rather beyond 04.10.2021 was a further period of 90 days.

6. Be that as it may, the investigating officer concerned, though was required to make a well constituted, and, legally befitting report, under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., to enable the learned trial Judge concerned, to assume valid jurisdiction, and, to take qua FIR (supra), valid cognizance, inasmuch as, he was required to obtain the mandatorily enjoined apposite sanction from the appropriate government, and, was also required to append it, with the apposite report, when as above stated, UAPA offences were als