J&K High Court Upholds Denial Of Default Bail To 3 UAPA Accused, Says Further Terror-Link Probe Didn’t Make Charge Sheet Incomplete

Facts

The appellants were arrested on 28 April 2025 in connection with an FIR alleging offences under the UAPA, the BNS, the Explosive Substances Act and the Arms Act.

Source reference: paras. 1, 3–4

The charge-sheet was filed on 25 October 2025. They sought default bail, arguing that the charge-sheet was incomplete because the investigation into their alleged links with slain or absconding terrorists remained ongoing. The designated trial court rejected the application on 28 February 2026, finding that the investigation into the offences attributed to them was complete. The appellants appealed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.

Source reference: paras. 1, 3–4

Issues

Whether the appellants’ right to default bail had accrued because the charge-sheet was allegedly incomplete, notwithstanding its filing within the applicable statutory period.

Source reference: p. 2, para. 2; paras. 3–4

Whether the appellants were entitled to bail on the merits of the case.

Source reference: paras. 4, 8

Law Applied

Section 43-D(2)(a) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, read with Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, governs the applicable period for filing the charge-sheet and the right to default bail.

Source reference: p. 2, para. 2

In Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that an investigating agency cannot file a charge-sheet without completing the investigation merely to defeat an accused’s default-bail right; such a charge-sheet does not extinguish that right, and detention cannot continue beyond the statutory period without offering default bail.

Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 5–6

The Court also noted the clarification in Directorate of Enforcement v. Manpreet Singh Talwar that courts may consider default-bail applications independently of, and without relying on, Ritu Chhabaria.

Source reference: p. 4, para. 7

Reasoning

The Court accepted the trial court’s assessment that the investigation was complete concerning the appellants’ involvement in the offences charged, based on the collected oral, electronic and forensic material, witness statements and call-detail records.

Source reference: p. 5, para. 8

It held that the stated intention to continue investigating links with slain or absconding terrorists did not, by itself, render the charge-sheet incomplete or establish that it had been filed solely to defeat the appellants’ default-bail right.

Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 3–4; p. 5, para. 8

The Court also found no basis to interfere with the trial court’s rejection of bail on the merits.

Source reference: p. 5, para. 8

Holding

The High Court held that the appellants had not established a right to default bail on the ground that the charge-sheet was incomplete and found no ground to grant bail on the merits.

It dismissed the appeal and directed that a copy of the order be sent to the trial court to proceed with the trial expeditiously.

Source reference: p. 5, paras. 8–9