K.T. Sankaran, J.

1. These appeals are filed by accused No. 4 in Crime No. 4 of 2015 of Agali Police Station, challenging the common order in Crl. M.P. Nos. 2383 and 2420 of 2015. Crl. M.P. No. 2383 of 2015 was filed by accused No. 4 for the grant of default bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Crl. M.P. No. 2420 of 2015 was filed by the investigating officer under Section 43-D(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 for extension of the period for completing the investigation up to 180 days. The court below dismissed the application filed by the appellant and allowed the application filed by the investigating officer.

2. The appellant resides within the limits of Agali Police Station. The prosecution case is the following: Between 18 hours on 30.12.2014 and 20 hours on 1.1.2015, certain unknown culprits, who are suspected to be members of the banned terrorists organisation C.P.I. (Maoist), set fire to the forest camp shed at Anavayil Haveloc in Bhavani Range under Silent Valley Division. In addition to setting fire, one solar panel, batteries and a 500 litre tank were stolen away by those unknown persons. A loss to the tune of Rs. 3,69,622/- was caused to the Government by the acts of the accused. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 used to visit the residence of the appellant and the appellant used to supply provisions to accused Nos. 1 to 3. They showed to him a video clipping of setting fire to the camp shed and asked him whether he wanted the stolen properties. Accordingly, two batteries came into the possession of the appellant and they were recovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act based on the confession statement made by the accused. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 10(a)(i), 13(1)(a), 38(1)and 39(1)(a)(i) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Sections 436 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

3. Certain facts are not in dispute. The appellant was arrested on 8.5.2015. The period of 90 days from the date of arrest expired on 6.8.2015. The application for extension of time under Section 43-D(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was filed by the investigating officer on 22.8.2015. The appellant filed application for the grant of default bail on 26.8.2015.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the application for extension of the period for completing the investigation was filed only by the investigating officer and no report of the Public Prosecutor was filed as mandated in sub-section (2) of Section 43-D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. For the sake of convenience, sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 43-D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act are extracted below:

"43-D. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code:-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law, every offence punishable under this Act shall be deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of clause (c) of Section 2 of the Code, and "cognizable case" as defined in that clause shall be construed accordingly.

(2) Section 167 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the modification that in sub-section (2),-

(a) the references to "fifteen days", "ninety days" and "sixty days" wherever they occur, shall be construed as references to "thirty days" "ninety days" and "ninety days" respectively; and

(b) after the proviso, the following provisos shall be inserted namely:-

"Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Court may if it is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of ninety days, extend the said period up to one hundred and eighty days:

Provided