VIKRAM NATH, J.

Leave granted.

2. The State of NCT of Delhi1 is in appeal assailing the correctness of the order dated 11.02.2021 passed 1 GNCTD Digitally signed by Neetu Khajuria Date: 2024.01.03 17:57:57 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified by the High Court of Delhi granting default bail to the respondent under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732.

3. Relevant facts for appropriate application of this controversy are briefly stated here under:

3.1. A First Information Report3 No.154 of 2020 was registered on 16.06.2020 with Police Station, Special Cell, New Delhi against the respondent for offences under Sections 13/18/20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 19674, Sections 201/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 18605, Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 19596. Pursuant to the said FIR, the respondent was arrested on 18.06.2020. 3.2. He was initially remanded to Police Custody for a period of three days and thereafter to Judicial Custody and has since been in 2 CrPC 3 FIR 4 UAPA 5 IPC 6 The Arms Act Mandoli Jail, New Delhi. The period of 90 days expired on 15th September, 2020. Before the expiry of the said period on the request of the Investigating Officer7, the time for investigation was extended by order dated 11.09.2020 for a further period of two months till 11.11.2020. The investigation was not complete till 11.11.2020 and no Police report under section 173(2) CrPC was filed.

3.3. Before the expiry of the extended period of investigation which was valid until 11.11.2020, the Public Prosecutor moved another application dated 07.11.2020 requesting for further extension of time for investigation for a period of 30 days as per the provisions contained in section 43D (2) (b) of UAPA. The reasons given for moving the said application were manifold which are noted as follows:

7 IO i) Sanction under section 45(2) of UAPA was awaited from GNCTD.

ii) FSL results of arms recovered from accused persons were also awaited; and iii) Sanction under section 39 of the Arms Act was to be obtained.

3.4. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court on 10.11.2020 and the period of investigation was further extended till 30.11.2020. In the said order of 10.11.2020, although all the reasons mentioned in the application dated 07.11.2020 seeking extension of the period of investigation were mentioned but in the operative portion, the Trial Court noted that the extension had been sought on the ground of obtaining mandatory sanction which was still pending before the GNCT Delhi and had accordingly granted the extension till 30.11.2020. The investigation has since been completed and Police report under section 173(2) CrPC was submitted on 26.11.2020 before the expiry of the period of extension for concluding the investigation up to 30.11.2020. 3.5. The respondent moved an application on 11.11.2020 itself under section 167 of the CrPC for release on bail. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 17.11.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred a petition under section 482 CrPC for setting aside the order dated 11.09.2020 and 10.11.2020 which was registered as Crl. M.C. No.2312 of 2020. This petition has since been allowed by the impugned order giving rise to the present appeal.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the High Court committed an error in allowing the petition and granting default bail to the respondent. In this connection, the High Court had relied upon the judgment in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others vs.

The State of Maharashtra and others8 wherein 8 (1994) 4 SCC 602 this Court was dealing with the provisions of section 20(4) (bb) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 19879 and had observed that the period for granting extension of investigation could not be extended in a casual manner for reasons other than those mentioned in the above noted provision which