The failure to file a charge sheet within the statutory period granted the accused the right to bail, emphasizing the prosecution's duty to adhere to procedural timelines.

1. Calling into question the legality and validity of the two orders, both dated 05.05.2021, passed by the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases), Chennai at Poonamallee (for brevity "the Special Court at Poonamallee") in Cri.M.P.Nos.168 and 181 of 2021, in and by which, the prayer for police custody of the respondent (Vivek / A.1) has been rejected and bail has been granted to him, respectively, the Inspector of Police, National Investigating Agency, Chennai, has filed these two criminal appeals.

2. The legal issue raised by the National Investigating Agency in these two criminal appeals lies in a very narrow compass, to decide which, it may be necessary to refer to a few dates and events.
2.1. Vivekanandan alias Vivek (A.1) / respondent allegedly uploaded an offensive post in his Facebook account, for which, the Inspector of Police, Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai, registered a case in Cri.No.1916/2020 for the offences under S.13(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short "the UAP Act") and S.505(1)(b) IPC against Vivek (A.1) and arrested him on 16.12.2020, produced him before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, who remanded him in custody. Seemingly, the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, has been placing Vivek (A.1) in judicial remand from time to time under S.167(2) Cr.P.C.
2.2. For the offences alleged in the FIR, the time period prescribed for default bail under S.167 Cr.P.C. is 90 days and accordingly, the 90 day fell on 15.03.2021. While that being so, by order dated 12.03.2021 of the Central Government, the investigation of the case in Thallakulam P.S. Cri.No.1916 of 2020 was entrusted to the National Investigating Agency (for short "the NIA") and the NIA re - registered the case on 14.03.2021 as RC / 07/2021 / NIA / DLI in accordance with their procedure under S.13(1)(b) of the UAP Act and S.505(1)(b) IPC. However, the Inspector of Police, Thallakulam Police Station was proceeding with the investigation of the case in terms of S.6(7) and S.10 of the NIA Act.
2.3. Seemingly, another FIR in Cri.No.2594 of 2020 was registered against Vivek (A.1) in which he was arrested by the State police and was being remanded in custody from time to time.
2.4. On 15.03.2021, the Public Prosecutor representing the Thallukulam police, filed an application before the Principal Sessions Court, Madurai, under S.43(D)(2) of the UAP Act in Cri.No.1916 of 2020 and Cri. No.2594 of 2020, since, under the UAP Act, the trial Court is the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge.
2.5. It may be pertinent to state here that Vivek (A.1) was being remanded from time to time in Cri.No.1916 of 2020 by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, whereas, the Public Prosecutor representing the local police had filed an application under S.43(D)(2) of the UAP Act for remand extension beyond 90 days before the Principal District Court, Madurai, where, the records of the case itself were not available.
2.6. For both the cases, viz., Cri. 1916 of 2020 and Cri. No. 2594 of 2020, the Public Prosecutor filed a common petition under S.43(D)(2)(b) of the UAP Act for extension of period of remand from 90 days to 180 days.
2.7. The Principal District Judge, Madurai, returned the petition on the ground that individual reports should be filed by the Public Prosecutor under S.43(D)(2)(b) of the UAP Act for each crime number.
2.8. Accordingly, on 16.03.2021, the Public Prosecutor filed two petitions (reports) under S.43(D)(2)(b), in which, notice was ordered on Vivek (A.1). It is alleged that Vivek (A.1) refused to receive the notice in the prison when the police tried to serve it on him and therefore, it was returned with the endorsement that he refused to