Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, PANKAJ PUROHIT, JJ.
Mujjamil and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 289, 291, 390, 391, 392, 393 of 2024
Decided On : 28-08-2024
Bail - Criminal Procedure - National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, Section 21(4), U.A.P.A. Act, 1967, Section 43D(2)(b) - The court emphasized the necessity of prompt investigation and the right to default bail under Article 21, ruling that extensions beyond 90 days require specific reasons and adherence to procedural safeguards.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were detained under FIRs related to violent protests against the demolition of encroachments. Their detention was extended beyond 90 days without sufficient justification, leading to appeals against the orders denying default bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the investigation was sluggish, with minimal progress made during the initial 90 days. The extension of detention was deemed unjustified as it violated the appellants' right to liberty under Article 21.
Issues: Whether the extension of detention beyond 90 days was justified under the U.A.P.A. Act and whether the appellants were denied their right to be heard before such extension.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to default bail is a fundamental right, and extensions of detention must be supported by specific reasons and procedural compliance, which were lacking in this case.
Result: The appeals were allowed, and the orders extending detention were set aside, directing the release of the appellants on bail.
JUDGMENT :
PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.
1. These are two sets of appeals; in one set, the orders passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani in FIR No. 22 of 2024 has been put to challenge, whereas in another set, the order passed by the same Court in FIR No. 23 of 2024 has been challenged. However the date of order(s) in all these matters is different. The substance of the said order is that the court has extended the period of investigation and appellants’ detention beyond the period of 90 days. At the same time the order(s) passed by the court of learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani in respect of aforementioned FIR/Crime Numbers 22 and 23 of 2024 have been challenged, whereby the application(s) moved by the appellants for granting them default bail has been turned down. Since the subject matter of all these appeals is one and the same, hence these are being disposed of by this common judgment. But for convenience facts of Criminal Appeal No. 289 of 2024, Gulzar Vs. State of Uttarakhand are being considered.
2. These criminal appeals have been filed under Section 21(4) of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 11.05.2024, passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani in FIR No. 22 of 2024, whereby the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani has extended the period of investigation and detention of the appellants beyond 90 days as well as the order dated 24.05.2024, passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani in Bail Application Nos.122 and 129 of 2024, whereby the bail applications of the appellants for release on default bail have been rejected.
3. Facts of the case giving rise to the present proceedings are that an FIR No. 22 of 2024 dated 08.02.2024 was lodged in Police Station Banbhoolpura, District Nainital under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 395, 427, 435 IPC, Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, Sections 3 and 4 of Uttarakhand Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 2003 and under Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 was lodged against unknown persons. Another FIR No. 23 of 2024 was also registered in Police Station Banbhoolpura on 09.02.2024 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B, 307, 332, 353, 427, 435 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Uttarakhand Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 2003 against Mehboob Alam, Shakil Ahmed and other unknown persons.
4. As per the aforesaid FIR, on 08.02.2024 officials from Nagar Nigam, Tehsil and Police went to a place in Banbhoolpura locality to demolish two structures allegedly encroachments on public land – one Madarsa and one Mosque, which was already sealed and fenced. When officials reached the spot they faced resistance from the local public, who formed a mob and started pelting stones at the officials and petrol bombs were also thrown in the process. During this process Police officials also rush to the Police Station Banbhoolpura after receiving of reports that some persons attempted to set the police station on fire; petrol bombs were thrown on the Police vehicle and the service pistols and cartridges of Police officials S.O. Mukhani were also snatched. The appellants were arrested during investigation in a period of two days i.e., on 11.02.2024 and 13.02.2024.
5. Under the provisions of CrPC under Section 167(2)(a)(i) the maximum period of detention of under trial is 90 days. According to the provisions of Section 167 CrPC if the investigation of a case as given in the provision of Section 167(2)(a)(i) is not completed within 90 days, the accused persons shall be entitled to get default bail under the said provisions of CrPC. The period of 90 days was going to expire on 12.05.2024 and 13.05.2024 respectively. In respect of the appellants, on 09.05.2024 the offence under Section 15/16 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “U.A.P.A. Act, 1967”) were added. By virtue of adding the provisions of the U.A.P.A. Act, 1967 the provisions of Section 43D ar
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC is a fundamental right, requiring prompt investigation and adherence to procedural safeguards for extensions beyond 90 days.
Right to life and liberty is one of integral part of Constitution of India and it is the most sacred Fundamental Right – Custody of people in name of various enactments and without adhering to prompt....
In cases involving UAPA, a valid extension of investigation period negates the right to default bail, contingent on statutory compliance.
An accused is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. if charges are not filed within the statutory period, emphasizing the fundamental right to personal liberty.
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 bai....
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is extinguished once a charge-sheet is filed; extensions beyond 90 days must follow proper procedures and be conducted by appropriate judicial a....
Default bail – Any direction to extend period for filing of charge-sheet encroaches upon personal liberty of an individual arrested in connection with a cognizable offence and any such direction must....
The right to default bail stands extinguished after the filing of the final report, and compliance with legal provisions is essential.
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) accrues upon non-filing of the charge-sheet within the stipulated time, and cannot be extinguished by subsequent extensions or filings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
