##PAGE1##

CRA-D-1240-2025 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRA-D-1240-2025 (O&M)

JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT OPERATIVE PART UPLOADED ON RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED PRONOUNCED OR

ON FULL

23.02.2026 07.04.2026 FULL PRONOUNCED 07.04.2026

Jagroop Singh ...Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR

Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with Ms. Simerpreet Sekhon, Advocate, for the appellant(s).

Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

20 13.04.2025 SSOC Amritsar 13, 17, 18, 18B, 20 of UAPA, Sections 3, 4, 5 of Explosive Substances Act, Section 61(2) of BNS

Bail Application number before the Sessions BA-5751-2025 Court CNR No.PBJL01-011909-2025

Date of Decision 19.08.2025

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his application for default bail under Section 187(2) BNSS (corresponding Section 167(2) CrPC) and acceptance of the application filed by the investigator through the public prosecutor for extension of time whereby time to file the

police report was extended, the appellant has come up before this Court for grant of bail.

2. Counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court allowed the application for extension of time in an arbitrary manner as the same was filed by the investigator and forwarded by the Public Prosecutor, however, the same is required to be filed by the Public Prosecutor itself which is in violation of the settle principle of law and not permissible

under Section 43-D of UAP Act.

3. Counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant had filed reply to such application, however, the Special Judge allowed the same and in the same breath dismissed the application for grant of bail under Section 187(2) BNSS (corresponding Section 167(2)

CrPC) on the ground that investigation is still pending.

JYOTI

2026.04.07 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRA-D-1240-2025 -2-

4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant had come up before this Court by filing the present appeal.

5. Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, submits that even if the application filed by the investigator was not in consonance with the provisions of Section 43D of UAPA, even then it will not make the investigation conducted by such

investigator pursuant to said extension as illegal.

6. Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, senior counsel for the appellant, submits that it was illegal to have granted an extension in the application filed by the investigator because the law

authorizes a public prosecutor to do so and not the investigator.

7. We have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record, and its analysis would lead to the following outcome.

8. Needless to say, under Section 43D of UAPA, it is the public prosecutor who has to file an application, but in the present case, perusal of the application (Annexure P-3) clearly points out that it was made by the investigating officer and forwarded by the Additional Public Prosecutor. By the impugned order, the application was allowed, and the

investigation was ordered to be conducted over an extended period.

9. The impugned order has two consequences: first, what would be the effect of the investigation conducted pursuant to a judicial order extending the time, and secondly, what would be its impact on a right under Section 187(2) BNSS accrued to the accused for not completing the investigation in time and not filing the charge sheet within the stipulated

time.

10. As far as the violation of Section 187(2) BNSS is concerned, it is the statutory provision enacted by the legislature itself, and the similar provision in CrPC, 1973 was reproduced in Section 187 of BNSS. It means the legislative intent did not change, and the

time limit for completing the investigation was adhered to.

11. Under Section 43D of UAPA, liberty was granted to the public prosecutor to seek an extension. In the present case, the public prosecutor never sought