The right to default bail under Section 167(2) accrues when the chargesheet is not filed within the stipulated time, irrespective of any illegal extension on invalid grounds.

Headnote:(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167(2) - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 13(1)(b), 120-B, 121-A, 153-A of IPC - Extension of time for filing chargesheet challenged - Trial Court granted extension based on prosecution's request for obtaining sanction - Court found order illegal as extension was not valid when investigation was complete, allowing grant of default bail. (Paras 18, 29, 41)

(B) Default Bail - Right to default bail under Section 167(2) clearly established; once the time provided for investigation expires and no chargesheet is filed, the accused is entitled to default bail irrespective of any extension granted on invalid grounds. (Paras 25, 26)

Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged the order extending the time to file a chargesheet which was deemed illegal after investigation concluded. The trial court’s decision allowing extension was based on the need for sanction from the appropriate authority, although the investigation was complete.

Findings of Court:
Extension granted on invalid grounds, thus affirming indefeasible right to default bail accrued to appellants.

Issues: Whether extension was legally warranted when the chargesheet was not filed within stipulated time.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once the investigation was complete, grounds for extension seeking only sanction were invalid; hence, default bail was rightfully claimed by the appellants.

Result: Appeals allowed; appellants entitled to bail.

JUDGMENT: (PER: GAURI GODSE, J.)

1. Although the arguments were concluded and judgment was reserved on 13^th December 2023, we listed the matter for further hearing on a praecipe moved by the learned Public Prosecutor as he wanted to address this Court on certain issues, including pointing out the latest decision of the Apex Court. Accordingly, we heard the learned counsels for the respective parties on 7^th March 2024, 25^th April 2024 and 2^nd May 2024.

2. This appeal is preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act , 2008 (“NIA Act”) to challenge the order dated 18^th January 2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge (MCOCA/POTA/TADA/NIA) and Additional Sessions Judge Greater Mumbai in NIA RA No. 946 of 2022 in Crime No. 19 of 2022, by which the court granted an extension of time of 15 days to file the chargesheet. By way of an amendment, the appellants have also challenged the order dated 20^th January 2023, by which the learned Judge rejected the appellants’ application for grant of bail under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (‘CrPC’).

3. By an order dated 18^th January 2023, the Trial Court granted an extension of 15 days to the prosecution to file the chargesheet on the ground that the prosecution was awaiting sanction from the appropriate Government.

4. For examining the grounds of challenge raised on behalf of the appellants, it is necessary to note the following dates as revealed from the roznama, applications filed by the parties and the orders passed below it:

 21 s t September 2022 :– FIR was registered with the ATS for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B , 121-A, 153-A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) and Sections 13 (1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (“ the UAPA ”).

 22^nd September 2022 : The appellants were arrested and produced before the Trial Court. By an order passed on the first remand application, the appellants were remanded to police custody for five days, i.e., until 26^th September 2022 .

 26^th September 2022 :– Appellants were produced before the Trial Court. An order was passed on the second remand application, and police custody was granted till 3^rd October 2022 on the ground that the prosecution required time for examining the electronic devices.

 3^rd October 2022 :– Appellants were produced before the Trial Court. An order was passed on the third remand application, and the police custody of the appellants was extended up to 8^th October 2022, again on the ground that time was required for examining the electronic devices.

 8^th October 2022 : The appellants were produced before the Trial Court and were granted judicial custody until 20^th October 2022.

 20^th October 2022 :- The appellants were produced before the Trial Court through video conferencing (“VC”). An application was filed for extension of the appellants’ judicial custody. The matter was adjourned to 3^rd November 2022 for the appearance of the accused through VC.

 3^rd November 2022 :- The appellants were not produced before the Trial Court through VC. Judicial custody was extended till 17^th November 2022.

 17^th November 2022 :- Appellants were produced before the Trial Court through VC. Judicial custody was accordingly extended till 1 s t December 2022.

 1 s t December 2022 :- Roznama does not reflect that the appellants were produced before the Trial Court either physically or through VC. However, it appears that the appellants’ Judicial custody was extended till 14^th December 2022 .

 14^th December 2022 :- Roznama does not reflect that the appellants were produced before the Trial Court either physically or through VC. However, it appears that the appellants’ Judicial custody was extended till 20^th December 2022 .

 17^th December 2022:- Since the ninety days period for filing the chargesheet was to expire on 20^th December 2022 , the prosecution filed a Criminal Misc. Application No. 1710 of 2022 and prayed for extension of time to file the chargesheet on two gro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 7548

The right to default bail under Section 167(2) accrues when the chargesheet is not filed within the stipulated time, irrespective of any illegal extension on invalid grounds.

Cases Referred (6)