Supreme Court Upholds Extension for Filing Charge Sheet in UAPA Case, Sets Aside Bombay HC Default Bail Order, Court says sanction under Section 45 UAPA is needed for cognizance, not for filing charge sheet; accused’s default bail right arises only if investigation report is not filed within time.
The Supreme Court on September 21, 2026, allowed the State of Maharashtra’s appeal and set aside a Bombay High Court judgment that had granted default bail to two accused persons in a UAPA case. A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar held that the second extension of time granted by the Special Judge to file the charge sheet was legal and valid, and that the accused had not acquired an indefeasible right to default bail.
The case arose from an FIR registered by the Anti-Terrorism Squad, Mumbai, on September 21, 2022, alleging offences under the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The accused were arrested the next day. Since the investigation had not been completed within the original 90-day period, the prosecution sought and obtained an extension of time under Section 43D of the UAPA. A further 15-day extension was later granted on January 18, 2023.
The accused challenged the extension and also sought default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 43D of the UAPA. The Bombay High Court accepted their plea, holding that the investigation was complete and that the extension was sought only to await sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA, which, according to it, could not justify extension of time for filing the charge sheet.
The Supreme Court disagreed. It said the High Court had misread the prosecution’s statements and wrongly concluded that the investigation had been completed. The Bench emphasized that courts cannot curtail the police’s statutory power to investigate, except in exceptional situations or where a legal bar exists. It held that a stray statement in the extension application—saying there was enough evidence to file a charge sheet—could not be treated as conclusive proof that the investigation was over.
The Court further clarified the legal position on sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA. It ruled that sanction is required only for the Court to take cognizance of the offence, not for the filing of the charge sheet. The investigating agency can file the charge sheet first, and the sanctioning authority can then consider the materials collected during investigation before granting sanction. Therefore, the pending sanction could not be treated as an invalid ground for seeking extension of time.
Referring to earlier rulings including Judgebir Singh, Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain, and State of NCT of Delhi v. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely, the Supreme Court reiterated that default bail becomes available only when the investigating agency fails to file the final report within the statutory or extended period and the accused applies for bail before the charge sheet is filed. In this case, since the extension order was valid and the charge sheet was eventually filed within the extended time, the accused could not claim default bail.
Allowing the appeal, the Court restored the Special Judge’s order dated January 18, 2023, and dismissed the accused’s default bail application. It directed the respondent No. 1 to surrender within 30 days, while leaving him free to seek regular bail in accordance with law.
Bottom Line:
Right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC read with Section 43D of the UAPA accrues only when the investigating agency fails to file a charge sheet within the statutory or extended period, and such right is not defeated by erroneous rejection of a bail application. The process of obtaining sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA is not necessary for filing a charge sheet but is required only for taking cognizance of the offence by the Court.
Statutory provision(s): Section 167(2), Section 173(2), Section 173(8), Section 190, Section 196, Section 309 CrPC, Section 43D UAPA, Section 45 UAPA, Section 13(1)(b) UAPA, Sections 120B, 121A, 153A, 201, 116 IPC
State of Maharashtra v. Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan @ Moin Mistri, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2982572
