Judgment

Mr. Harinder Singh Sidhu, J.

By filing this appeal, Manjeet Singh, has challenged the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby, his application for grant of default bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

2. FIR No.76 dated 15.06.2022 under Sections 124-A, 153-A, 153-B read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (amended, 2012) {for short ‘UA(P) Act’} and Section 3 of Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1985 {for short ‘PDPA, 1985’}, Police Station Division No.3, Jalandhar was registered against some unknown persons for writing ‘Khalistan Zindabad’ with black paint on the wall outside the office of one Gulshan Sharma. The appellant, who had been lodged in District Jail Karnal in some other case, was brought from the Jail on production warrant and arrested on 12.07.2022 in the instant case. Vide rapat No.28 dated 28.07.2022 offence under Section 124-A IPC was deleted and offences under Section 13 of the UA(P) Act and Section 3 of PDPA, 1985, were added. The statutory period of 90 days for the presentation of challan was to end on 10.10.2022 as no application for extension of time period was moved. The Police presented challan against the appellant on 08.10.2022 under Sections 153-A, 153-B, 120-B IPC, Section 13 of the UA(P) Act and Section 3 of the PDPA 1985, without obtaining any sanction from the competent authorities under Section 45 of the UA(P) Act and Section 196 CrPC.

3. The case of the appellant was that the police report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. without obtaining sanction of the competent authority could not be said to be a complete report. Hence he was entitled to grant of default bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. This contention was rejected by the Ld. Court by holding that a police report containing the particulars as mentioned in Section 173(2) of the Cr. P.C. was a complete report and the absence of sanction would not render it incomplete. The appellant was held not entitled to be released on default bail.

4. Sh. Mitul Singh Rana Ld. Counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions.

i. As per Section 45 of the UA(P) Act no Court can take cognizance of offences under the Act without sanction of the competent authority. As cognizance is prohibited the absence of sanction would lead to delay in trial.

ii. Filing of challan without sanction is akin to filing of a challan under the NDPS Act without the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. A police report not accompanied by the FSL report has been held to be an incomplete report entitling the accused to default bail. Same is the position here. He relied on a decision of this Court in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta and another Vs. State of Punjab (Crl. Revision No. 4659 of 2015, decided on 30.11.2018).

iii. As per the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008 (for short “the Rules”) a specific time frame is prescribed for recommendation and grant of sanction. The period prescribed therein is mandatory. If the sanction is not granted within the period prescribed the accused would be entitled to be released on bail.

iv. Section 167 Cr.P.C. regulates the remand during the period of investigation. An outer time limit for remand is provided therein. There is no power with the Magistrate to grant remand beyond that period. After submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. the power of remand is exercisable either under Section 209 Cr. P. C. (in cases where the case is to be committed to the Cour