Beyond Jurisdiction: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Indefeasible Right to Default Bail in UAPA Case

In a significant ruling protecting the fundamental right to liberty, the Rajasthan High Court has clarified the jurisdictional boundaries regarding the extension of judicial custody under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act ( UAPA ), 1967. Justice Sudesh Bansal emphasized that a Chief Judicial Magistrate lacks the authority to extend remand beyond the statutory 90-day limit, a power exclusively reserved for Special Courts or Courts of Session.

The Backdrop: A Procedural Overreach

The petitioner, Mohd. Sohail Bishti, was arrested on September 17, 2023, under Section 153A of the IPC and Section 13 of the UAPA , following allegations involving anti-religious content on social media. As his 90-day judicial custody period neared its end, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Jaipur Metropolitan-II, passed an order extending his detention for another 90 days.

When the investigation remained incomplete and no charge sheet was filed, the petitioner sought default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The CJM’s refusal to grant bail—on the grounds that the court could not review its own earlier extension order—led the petitioner to the High Court.

Arguments from the Bar

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the CJM acted beyond statutory competence. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in * Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab *, the petitioner asserted that under Section 22 of the NIA Act, 2008, only a Special Court or, in its absence, a Court of Session, is empowered to extend the period of investigation and detention under the UAPA .

The State, however, attempted to draw a parallel to Naser Bin Abu Bakr Yafai v. State of Maharashtra , arguing that the CJM maintained jurisdiction until the case was formally handed over to the NIA. The High Court rejected this, clarifying that the earlier precedent specifically accounted for instances where no special court had been designated at the time—a situation not applicable here.

The Court’s Analysis: Safeguarding Constitutional Rights

The High Court’s analysis hinged on a strict interpretation of Section 43D(2) of the UAPA and the NIA Act. The Court noted that while a magistrate may handle initial remand, any extension beyond the statutory threshold requires a report from the Public Prosecutor and an express order from a superior court designated under the Act.

The Court observed: > "This Court is of the view that the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, extending the remand of accused beyond the period of 90 days was grossly illegal and perverse as much as beyond his jurisdiction."

Furthermore, in addressing the denial of default bail, the Court invoked the principle of "indefeasible right." It ruled that because the extension order itself was void for lack of jurisdiction, the statutory period for investigation had expired, triggering the petitioner's right to be released on bail before the charge sheet could be filed.

Key Observations

• On Jurisdiction: "The Judicial Magistrate would also have the jurisdiction to deal with remand of accused for a period of 90 days only but for further extension of the remand period, an express order of Sessions Court or Special Court would be required."
• On Fundamental Rights: "...since right of default bail is indefeasible right, conferred on the accused by statutory provisions of law and is connected with the fundamental right of life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21... this Court, in order to protect legal and constitutional right of petitioner, confirms his right to be released on default bail."
• On Legal Precedent: "The proposition of law expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Bikramjit Singh & Jayeeta Das applies to the case of petitioner and he is entitled to get benefit of default bail."

The Verdict: A Reinforcement of Due Process

The High Court set aside the orders of the lower courts, affirming that an accused cannot be deprived of liberty based on an administratively invalid extension of custody. By allowing the petition, the Court has reinforced that even in matters concerning draconian statutes like the UAPA , procedural due process remains the bedrock of the Indian judicial system. The petitioner is now entitled to seek bail from the trial court, ensuring that the wheels of justice turn within the strict confines of the law.

---

This article is for information purpose only and does not constitute legal advice.