The Supreme Court recently overturned a Punjab and Haryana High Court order dated May 12, 2023, which had granted default bail to accused individuals under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The High Court’s decision was based on the absence of a valid order extending the time for the investigation agency to file a chargesheet.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and P.B. Varale acknowledged that the High Court was correct in holding that the extension order was issued by a court lacking jurisdictional competence. However, the Supreme Court highlighted that the application for default bail was filed four months after the chargesheet had been submitted, rendering the right to default bail inapplicable.
The bench held that the benefit of default bail can only be claimed before the filing of the chargesheet, which was not the case here. Consequently, the High Court erred in granting such a benefit to the accused while disregarding the earlier filing of the chargesheet.
Case Background
On September 15, 2021, a bomb blast occurred on a motorcycle in Jalalabad (Fazilka district). An FIR (No. 205) was registered the following day under various sections of the Explosive Substances Act, UAPA, and the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Following leads that the accused could be apprehended at Tarlok Singh’s residence, another FIR (No. 181) was registered under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and UAPA.
Subsequently, several individuals, including Jaswant Singh @ Shinda Baba and Balwant Singh @ Bant, were arrested. Jaswant Singh filed a default bail application on February 14, 2020, under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). However, the application was rejected, as an extension of 180 days for filing the chargesheet had already been granted on January 31, 2022. No appeal was filed against this rejection.
The chargesheet was eventually filed on April 29, 2022, and the case was committed to the Sessions Judge on July 8, 2022. On September 2, 2022, the accused filed a fresh application for default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC read with Section 43D of the UAPA. This was dismissed on September 5, 2022, as the chargesheet had already been filed months earlier.
Appeal to the High Court
The accused challenged the dismissal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which allowed their appeal. The High Court held that only a Designated Special Court had jurisdiction to grant an extension of time for investigation. It noted that the extension granted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagraon, was invalid, thereby entitling the accused to default bail.
Aggrieved by this decision, the State of Punjab approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court to the extent that the extension order was issued by a court lacking jurisdiction. However, it clarified that the right to default bail arises only before the filing of a chargesheet.
Referring to Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay (1994), the Court reiterated that the right to default bail accrues when the investigation period or its extended timeline lapses without a chargesheet being filed. This right remains enforceable only until the chargesheet is filed. Once filed, any bail application must be decided based on the merits of the case under the relevant provisions of the CrPC.
The bench also cited CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan (2024), stating that the proviso to Section 167(2) of the CrPC applies only when the investigation remains pending and no chargesheet has been filed. The right to default bail extinguishes upon the filing of the chargesheet.
Based on the timeline, the Court held that the accused’s application for default bail on September 2, 2022, was invalid as the chargesheet had already been filed on April 29, 2022. Therefore, no right to default bail existed at the time of filing the application.
Case Name: State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh
