1. Appeal against order denying default bail under UAPA where appellants contended charge-sheet was incomplete as investigation into certain aspects remained ongoing. (Para 03 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 920
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Raiz – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory Of J&K – Respondent
Crl A(D) No.22/2026
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants argued incomplete investigation renders charge-sheet invalid for default bail purposes, while respondents asserted investigation was complete regarding the accused's involvement and offences identified. (Para 03 , 04 )
3. The Court noted that completion of investigation concerning an accused's involvement satisfies statutory requirements, regardless of supplementary investigation regarding external links or additional suspects. (Para 04 , 08 )
4. A charge-sheet is not rendered incomplete for default bail purposes solely because the investigating agency anticipates further investigation or supplementary filings regarding auxiliary aspects of the case. (Para 08 )
5. Appeal dismissed; trial court order denying default bail and bail on merits upheld. (Para 09 )
6. Does the pendency of further investigation into external links render a charge-sheet incomplete for the purpose of granting default bail?
No. A charge-sheet is sufficient for statutory compliance if the investigation concerning the arrested accused's involvement in the charged offences is complete. Supplementary investigation regarding ancillary matters like external links does not establish the right to default bail. (Para 04 , 08 )
7. What is the status of the right to default bail in relation to investigations under special statutes?
While default bail is a fundamental right rooted in Article 21, it is triggered only if the investigation is not completed within the prescribed statutory period. It does not apply where a charge-sheet has been filed confirming the investigation of the accused's culpability. (Para 05 , 06 , 08 )
##PAGE1##
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Crl A(D) No.22/2026 Reserved on: 29.09.2026 Pronounced on: 21.10.2026 Uploaded on: 21.10.2026
1. Raiz, Age 24 years
2. Younis, Age 21 years Both sons of Mohd. Latif 3. Meema, Age 60 years W/O Mohd. Latif All residents of village Suffian Bhaddu, Tehsil & District Kathua.
Presently lodged in District Jail, Jammu, Through their son-in-law, Jabbar, Age 38 years, S/O Farid, R/O Ward No.6, near GPS Safyan Barnoti, Tehsil and District Kathua .....Appellant(s)
Through :- Mr. Irfan Khan, Advocate v/s Union Territory of J&K through State Investigating Agency, Jammu. .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Assisting counsel to Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE YASH PAUL BOURNEY, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Per: Y. P. Bourney-J
01. This appeal, filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the learned 3rdAdditional Sessions Judge, Jammu [Designated Court under Section 22 NIA Act), whereby the trial court declined to grant default bail to the appellants in case FIR No.61/2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 13/16/18/23/38/39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), read with Sections
##PAGE2##61(2)/103/109/147/149/249 BNS and 3/4/5 Explosive Substances Act &
7/27 Arms Act.
02. The precise question for determination is whether right to claim bail in default of presentation of charge-sheet within the time limit as prescribed under Section 43-D(2)(a) of the UAPA read with Section 187 of BNSS has accrued to the appellants/accused?
03. It is admitted case of the appellants that pursuant to the registration of FIR No. 61/2025 dated 28.03.2025 for offences punishable under Sections 13/16/18/23/38/39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), read with Sections 61(2)/103/109/147/149/249 BNS and 3/4/5 Explosive Substances Act & 7/27 Arms Act, appellants came to be arrested on 28.04.2025 and the charge-sheet has also been filed in due course on 25.10.2025. A claim was laid for default bail by the appellants before the trial court on the premise that investigation was not complete and as a matter of fact, an incomplete charge-sheet came to be presented before the Court just to deprive the appellants of their indefeasible right to defend its bail. Much stress has been laid on para 18.3 of the charge-sheet wherein the investigation with respect to certain aspects as detailed therein was still claimed to be going on and efforts to establish the links of appellants with the terrorists killed/absconding were still going on, claiming thereby that investigation was yet to establish any link between the slain/absconding terrorists and therefore, it was an incomplete charge sheet since a vital aspect was yet to be investigated. Reliance is placed upon the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Ritu Chhabaria Vs.
Union of India & Ors.’ reported as 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 352.
##PAGE3##04. A perusal of the order impugned would show that all these points have been urged before the Trial Court, which ultimately came to dismiss the application vide order dated 28.02.2026 by holding that mere reference in para 18.3 that investigation was going on to establish the links of the arrested accused persons (appellants) with the slain/absconding terrorists as well as to find out their involvement in the past in terror related incident in Kathua does not mean that charge-sheet was incomplete since in para 18.4, it has been clearly mentioned that offences under Sections 13/19 UAPA stood established against the trio (appellants). In that view the charge-sheet cannot be said to be incomplete merely because some supplementary charge-sheet was anticipated in near future to highlight the links of the arrested accused with the terrorist agencies operating from across the border. An attempt was also made to make out a case for bail on merits, however
