Supreme Court grants default bail in Jharkhand UAPA case, faulting mechanical extension of investigation
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that extending the investigation period under UAPA without producing the accused or recording reasons violates Article 21, and ordered the appellant's release on default bail.
The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside successive orders by a Special NIA Court in Ranchi and the Jharkhand High Court that had kept the appellant in custody beyond the statutory ninety-day window in a UAPA case, and directed his release on default bail. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that the first extension of the investigation period — granted on 2 February 2024 without producing the accused, without notice to him, and without any recorded reasons — was not a procedural irregularity but a gross illegality that violated Article 21 of the Constitution.
The case
The appellant, Md. Ariz Hasnain, was named in FIR No. 13 of 2023 dated 7 November 2023, registered at Police Station ATS, Ranchi, for offences under Sections 124A, 153A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The order recites that he was, on his case, illegally detained on 4 November 2023, formally arrested on 7 November 2023, and remanded to judicial custody on 8 November 2023.
The ninety-day period under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was due to expire on 5 February 2024. On 2 February 2024 — three days before that wall — the investigating officer applied for an additional thirty days to complete the investigation. The Special Judge, ATS, Ranchi allowed the application the same day, granting a twenty-five-day extension under the proviso to Section 43-D(2) UAPA. The appellant, in judicial custody, was neither produced nor informed.
On 8 February 2024, unaware of the 2 February order, the appellant moved an application for default bail. The trial Court rejected it on 20 February 2024, citing the extension. A second extension followed on 28 February 2024, and a fourth on 19 April 2024. The appellant's challenge before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi was dismissed on 21 February 2025, the High Court reasoning that the chargesheet had been filed within the extended period and the prayer for default bail had “lost its efficacy”.
What the Court held on production and notice
The bench, after directing the State's standing counsel Rajiv Shankar Dwivedi to place the relevant order sheets on record, found that the proceedings of 2 February 2024 nowhere reflect that the appellant was intimated of the prosecutor's application or given an opportunity to be heard. The order itself, the bench observed, contains a bald recitation that the public prosecutor had submitted that investigation was pending, with no reasons recorded for either the necessity of further detention or the progress of investigation.
Falling back on its 2023 ruling in Jigar v. State of Gujarat, the Court reiterated that the requirement to produce the accused — either physically or through video conferencing — before extending custody beyond ninety days under UAPA is a sine qua non, not a formality. The accused has a right to oppose the extension; that right cannot be reduced to an empty ceremony.
The failure to procure the presence of the accused is gross illegality that violates the rights of the accused under Article 21.
The reasoning
Two strands run through the order. The first is statutory: under Section 167(2) CrPC read with the proviso to Section 43-D(2) UAPA, an extension of investigation beyond ninety days is permissible only on a report by the Public Prosecutor that discloses the progress of the investigation and specific reasons justifying continued detention. Both elements were absent in the 2 February order. The bench noted further that the orders of 28 February and 19 April 2024 reproduced verbatim the same boilerplate, indicating no fresh application of judicial mind.
The second is constitutional. Drawing on the Constitution Bench analysis in Sanjay Dutt v. State and the elaboration in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur, the bench held that the right to default bail is intrinsically connected to the liberty guaranteed by Article 21. Procedural safeguards before that right is extinguished are themselves part of the fair procedure Article 21 requires. Failure to produce the accused and to inform him that an extension is being sought is therefore not a curable lapse but a constitutional violation.
The fact that the second application on 28 February 2024 was heard in the appellant's counsel's presence did not save the chain. By that date, the right to default bail had already crystallised on 8 February when the appellant moved his application. And the reasons recorded on 28 February were no more reasoned than those on 2 February.
The High Court's error
The High Court had reasoned that since the chargesheet was eventually filed on 2 May 2024 within the extended period, the petition challenging the extension orders had become infructuous. The Supreme Court rejected that approach. If the underlying extensions are illegal, a chargesheet filed in reliance on them does not retrospectively cure the violation of the accused's right to liberty during the intervening period. The right to default bail, once accrued, is indefeasible.
Order
The bench declared the impugned orders bad in law and set them aside. The appellant has been directed to be released on default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC on furnishing bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court, which retains discretion to impose suitable conditions to secure his presence at trial. The criminal appeal stands allowed.