Failure to Notify Accused Before Extending Investigation Period Under UAPA Renders Subsequent Detention Illegal and Entitles Default Bail.

The appellant was arrested on November 7, 2023, for offenses under Sections 124A, 153A, and 120B of the IPC and Sections 18, 20, 38, and 39 of the UAPA

The statutory 90-day period for filing a chargesheet under Section 167(2) of the CrPC was set to expire on February 5, 2024

On February 2, 2024, the Special Judge granted a 25-day extension for the investigation upon an application by the Investigating Officer, forwarded by the APP

The appellant was neither produced nor notified of this extension hearing

On February 8, 2024, the appellant applied for default bail, which the trial court rejected on February 20, 2024, citing the prior extension

The High Court dismissed the appellant's challenge, holding that the filing of the chargesheet within the extended period rendered the default bail plea infructuous

Section 167(2) of the CrPC, which mandates the release of an accused on default bail if the investigation is not completed within the prescribed period

Section 43-D(2) of the UAPA, which allows for the extension of detention up to 180 days subject to a report by the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for continued detention

The precedent in Jigar v. State of Gujarat (2023), confirming that the production of the accused (physically or virtually) and notice of the extension application are mandatory requirements of law under Article 21 of the Constitution

The Court observed that the trial court's order dated February 2, 2024, was passed behind the appellant's back, violating the mandatory requirement to procure the presence of the accused during extension proceedings

The Court noted that the "indefeasible right" to default bail is intrinsically linked to Article 21, and failure to notify the accused is a "gross illegality" rather than a mere procedural lapse

the Court found that the Special Judge failed to exercise judicial mind, as the extension orders were granted mechanically based on "bald submissions" by the APP without recording specific reasons or evaluating the progress of the investigation

Since the first extension was invalid, the subsequent custody beyond 90 days was unauthorized, and the appellant had "crystallized" his right to default bail by filing an application before the chargesheet was submitted

The appellant acquired an indefeasible right to bail because the chargesheet was filed after the statutory period had expired and the intervening extension orders were void

The Court ordered the appellant to be released on default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court