IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

CRR 3985 of 2024 with CRAN 1 of 2024 Abdur Rakib Sarkar @ Habibullah @ Habib & Ors.

Vs State of West Bengal.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Aarif Ali, Mr. Mujahid Ahmed, Mr. Giasul Islam.

For the State : Mr. Debasis Roy, Ld. P.P., Mr. Arijit Ganguly.

Judgment reserved on : 10.09.2025 Judgment delivered on : 23.09.2025 Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:

1. This revision has been preferred praying for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 15.11.2022, extending the period of investigation 90 days to 180 days by virtue of Section 43D UAPA and order dated 27.12.2022 from rejecting the prayer for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., in G.R. No. 3027 of 2022, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, in Shasan P.S. Case No. 159/2022, under Sections 120B/121/121A/125 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections

16/17/18/18B/19/20/38/39/40 of the UAPA.

2. The petitioners‟ case is that they have invoked their indefeasible right of default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 43D UAPA in absence of valid extension order i.e. order dated 15.11.2022 and before filing the charge-sheet, hence they are entitled to be considered for their release on default bail.

3. It is further stated that the petitioners on 27.12.2022 had preferred an application for invoking the default bail under Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure read with 43D UAPA, on the ground that after completion of the statutory period of 90 days under Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure on 15.11.2022, neither the charge-sheet nor any application under Section 43D UAPA for further investigation were submitted by the prosecution, but the learned trial Court on the same day was pleased to reject the prayer for statutory bail of the petitioners in a whimsical and mechanical manner without assigning any reasons.

4. It is their further case that the statutory period of 90 days of petitioner no. 1 and 2 from the date of first remand i.e. 18.08.2022 was completed on 15.11.2022. After the remand dated 10.11.2022, the petitioners were produced through Video Conferencing on the following dates 24.11.2022, 08.12.2022 and 22.12.2022, before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barasat, however the impugned extension order passed on 15.11.2022 was not communicated to the petitioners.

5. It is their further case that the petitioners realized that there was neither charge-sheet, nor any extension order for completion of the investigation, therefore, keeping in view of the same, on 27.12.2022, the petitioners invoked their statutory right by way of filing the application under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 43D UAPA, seeking default bail, which was rejected by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on the same day.

6. It is stated that after the 1^st charge-sheet dated 12.02.2023, the prosecution submitted the 2^nd supplementary, 3^rd supplementary and 4th supplementary charge-sheet on the following dates, 13.04.2023, 24.04.2023 and 17.10.2023.

7. On 17.03.2023, the learned ACJM, was pleased to reject the bail application, under Section 437 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioners observing the following:-

“it is proposition of law that the right of statutory bail is not automatic, unless availed of by the accused persons. In this case, even after the charge-sheet was submitted, the accused persons were sleeping tight over to avail their right. Moreover, cognizance has already been taken by this Court, therefore, as per doctrine of factum valet this Court has no jurisdiction to delve into the merit of the cognizance taken by this Court”.

8. The petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 17.03.2023 preferred a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being C.R.M.(DB) No. 1923 of 2023, wherein the Hon‟ble Court on 05.07.2023, was pleased