UAPA cases: Supreme Court upholds extension of time for charge sheet, says courts cannot curtail ongoing police investigation

An FIR was registered by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad on 21 September 2022 for offences under Sections 120B, 121A and 153A IPC and Section 13(1)(b) of the UAPA.

The respondents were arrested on 22 September 2022 and remained in custody during the investigation.

Since the investigation was not completed within the initial ninety-day period, the Special Judge granted a thirty-day extension under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA on 17 December 2022, followed by a further fifteen-day extension on 18 January 2023.

The respondents’ default-bail application filed on 20 January 2023 was rejected as premature because the extended period would expire on 2 February 2023.

A charge sheet was filed on 2 February 2023.

The Bombay High Court held that the second extension was invalid, principally because the investigation was allegedly complete and the remaining sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA was not a valid ground for extending time; it consequently granted default bail.

The State challenged that decision before the Supreme Court.

Whether the Special Judge’s order dated 18 January 2023 granting a further fifteen-day extension for filing the charge sheet under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA was legal and valid?

Whether the respondents acquired an indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC read with Section 43-D(2) of the UAPA upon expiry of the initial or extended period for filing the charge sheet?

Whether the High Court could conclude that the investigation was complete and thereby curtail the investigating agency’s power to continue its investigation?

Section 167(2) CrPC, read with Section 43-D(2) of the UAPA, creates an indefeasible right to default bail when the investigation is not completed and the charge sheet is not filed within the statutory or validly extended period, provided the accused applies for bail and is prepared to furnish it.

Under Section 43-D(2)(b) UAPA, the Court may extend the ninety-day period up to 180 days if satisfied with the Public Prosecutor’s report indicating the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for continued detention.

Sanction under Section 45 UAPA is required for taking cognizance, not ordinarily for filing a charge sheet; therefore, a charge sheet filed without sanction is not necessarily incomplete.

However, the completion of investigation and filing of a complete final report remain within the investigating agency’s statutory domain, and courts should not ordinarily dictate when investigation must end, subject to exceptional cases or statutory restrictions.

The Court relied, inter alia, on Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, Sanjay Dutt v. State through C.B.I., State of Maharashtra v. Surendra Pundlik Gadling, State of NCT of Delhi v. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely, Judgebir Singh v. National Investigation Agency, and Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had improperly treated the isolated statement that sufficient material existed to file a charge sheet as an admission that the investigation was complete.

Read as a whole, the second extension application showed that voice samples were still being examined, financial transactions and bank accounts were being verified, electronic data was still under analysis, and further material concerning connected cases and offences was being collected.

Analysis of forensic data and tracing the financial links allegedly connecting the accused with terrorist activities were substantive parts of the investigation, not matters that could necessarily be deferred until after filing the charge sheet.

Although the High Court correctly recognised that sanction under Section 45 UAPA concerns cognizance and is not a prerequisite for filing a charge sheet, that issue was not decisive because the second extension was sought principally to complete the remaining investigative work, rather than merely to await sanction.

The Special Judge had therefore acted within the statutory framework in granting further time, and no default-bail right accrued on 19 January 2023.

It held that the Special Judge’s order dated 18 January 2023 granting a further fifteen-day extension under Section 43-D(2)(b) UAPA was legal and valid, and that the respondents’ default-bail application dated 20 January 2023 was liable to be dismissed.

Respondent No. 1 was directed to surrender within thirty days, with liberty to seek regular bail in accordance with law.