‘Mechanical’ extension of UAPA custody violates liberty: Supreme Court grants bail to Jharkhand accused

Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta directed the state to clarify if the accused had been produced physically or virtually when the first extension was granted.

“In an absolutely mechanical manner, the learned Special Judge recorded the prayer of the public prosecutor and casually extended the period for filing of chargesheet by 25 days. Hence, the order extending time to conclude investigation is grossly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the fundamental right of liberty of the appellant as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the Supreme Court bench said on April 30.

‘Mechanical’ extension orders criticised

• Any direction to extend the period for filing of a chargesheet encroaches upon the personal liberty of an individual arrested in connection with a cognisable offence, the Supreme Court noted.
• Thus, any such direction must be preceded by due application of mind and by recording justifiable reasons.
• If the investigation is not completed and the chargesheet is not filed within the aforesaid period, it would give rise to an indefeasible right in favour of the accused to seek default bail.
• Hence, any direction to extend the period for filing of chargesheet encroaches upon the personal liberty of an individual arrested in connection with a cognisable offence and thus, any such direction must be preceded by due application of mind and by recording justifiable reasons, the Supreme Court stated.
• Thus, the orders of extension, as referred to above, clearly reflect that the extensions were granted in a totally mechanical manner without assigning any justifiable reasons.
• The Supreme Court bench also said that extension of time under Section 167(2) CrPC directly affects an accused person’s “indefeasible right” to default bail and therefore requires strict judicial scrutiny.

Background

According to the case records, the appellant was booked and a First Information Report (FIR) was registered by ATS Ranchi on November 7, 2023, under sections 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, or language, and doing acts prejudicial to maintaining harmony) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with sections 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the UAPA.

The prosecution alleged links with ISIS-related persons. The accused claimed he had actually been detained on November 4, 2023, before the registration of the FIR, and was formally shown arrested on November 7.

He was remanded in judicial custody on November 8, 2023. As the statutory 90-day period for filing the chargesheet was nearing expiry on February 5, 2024, the investigating officer moved an application on February 2, 2024, seeking an extension of time to complete the investigation. The special court granted a further 25 days.

The appellant later argued that the extension order had been passed behind his back while he remained in custody and that he had neither been informed of the application nor allowed to oppose it.

Plea for default bail

• After expiry of the original 90-day period, the appellant moved an application seeking default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on February 8, 2024.
• However, the special court rejected the plea on February 20, 2024, after informing him about the earlier extension order.
• Subsequently, further extensions were granted on February 28, March 28 and April 19, 2024.
• Meanwhile, the chargesheet was eventually filed on May 2, 2024, under Sections 153A and 120B IPC and sections 16, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the UAPA.
• The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the accused’s challenge in February 2025, observing that since the chargesheet had already been filed within the extended period, nothing survived in the matter.

Supreme Court finds violation of procedural safeguards

• The apex court closely examined the trial court records after directing the state to clarify whether the accused had been produced physically or virtually when the first extension was granted on February 2, 2024.
• After perusing the order sheets, the Supreme Court bench found that the accused had not been informed about the extension application and was not given any opportunity to object to it.
• Relying on the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Jigar vs State of Gujarat (2023), the court reiterated that production of the accused and informing him that the court is considering extension of investigation time is a mandatory safeguard and not an empty formality.
• The top court noted that the accused has a limited but valuable right to oppose such extensions, including by questioning whether the public prosecutor had independently applied their mind or whether sufficient reasons existed for continued detention.

Right to default bail had crystallised

The Supreme Court ultimately held that since the February 2, 2024, extension order itself was illegal, the subsequent custody beyond 90 days became unlawful.

As the appellant had already applied for default bail before the chargesheet was filed, his right to statutory bail had “crystallised”.

Allowing the appeal, the top court directed that the appellant be released on default bail upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court, which would be free to impose appropriate conditions for ensuring his presence during trial.