NCT Delhi v. Raj Kumar: Default Bail Cancelled (2024 INSC 11)

Supreme Court of India

2024 INSC 11

State of NCT of Delhi v. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely

(Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2024)

03 January 2024

[Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]

One more aspect to be considered is the nature of offence which involved terrorist activities having not only Pan India impact but also impact on other enemy States. The matter should not have been taken so lightly.

This case revolves around the interpretation and application of the statutory provisions under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), specifically in the context of granting or denying “default bail.”

Key Facts and Observations:

1. Default Bail and Statutory Period: Under Section 167(2) CrPC, the accused is entitled to default bail if the investigation is not completed within the prescribed period of 90 days (or 60 days for less severe offenses). However, under Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA, the statutory period for completing the investigation can be extended up to 180 days with valid justification.
2. Chronology of Events:
   • The 90-day period for completing the investigation expired on 15.09.2020.
   • On 11.09.2020, before the expiry of 90 days, the Trial Court extended the investigation period by 2 months (until 11.11.2020) on the Investigating Officer’s request.
   • On 07.11.2020, the Public Prosecutor filed another application requesting a further extension of 30 days, which was granted on 10.11.2020, extending the time for investigation until 30.11.2020.
   • Despite this, the respondent filed an application for default bail on 11.11.2020, which was rejected by the Trial Court but subsequently granted by the High Court.
3. High Court’s Reasoning:
   • The High Court relied on the precedent set in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, a case dealing with the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA), to hold that the extension of time for completing the investigation was improper.
   • It concluded that the statutory sanctions required under UAPA were already obtained before the extension application and therefore rejected the justification for further delay.
4. Supreme Court’s Findings:
   • Misplaced Reliance on Hitendra Vishnu Thakur: The High Court erred in applying principles from the TADA framework to UAPA. The provisions under UAPA Section 43D(2)(b) are distinct, allowing an extension for investigation based on specific conditions such as the progress of the investigation and the necessity for further detention.
   • Errors in Factual Findings: The High Court incorrectly recorded that all sanctions were received when, in fact, sanctions under certain provisions (such as Section 45(2) of UAPA and Section 39 of the Arms Act) were pending.
   • Progress of Investigation Justified: The application for the second extension provided valid reasons under Section 43D(2)(b), including progress in the investigation and the necessity of further detention. The Trial Court appropriately granted the extension based on these reasons.
   • Completion of Investigation: Before the expiry of the extended period on 30.11.2020, the police filed the final report under Section 173(2) of CrPC, negating the basis for default bail.

Legal Principles and Conclusion:

1. Extension of Investigation Period under UAPA:
   • Section 43D(2)(b) allows the investigation period to be extended up to 180 days if:
     • Progress in the investigation is documented.
     • Specific reasons are provided justifying the need for detention beyond 90 days.
   • The provision aims to balance the rights of the accused with the complexity of investigating serious offenses under UAPA.
2. Default Bail:
   • Default bail is a statutory right under Section 167(2) CrPC but is contingent upon the prosecution failing to file the charge sheet within the prescribed period or validly extended period.
   • If the statutory requirements under Section 43D(2)(b) are met, the extension nullifies the right to default bail.
3. Supreme Court’s Decision:
   • The High Court committed a grave error in granting default bail by misapplying the principles under TADA to a UAPA case.
   • The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and upheld the Trial Court’s decision to deny default bail.

Final Outcome:

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that procedural extensions under Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA must be evaluated on their own merits and cannot be casually equated with provisions under other anti-terror statutes. The High Court’s order granting default bail to the respondent was set aside as it failed to consider the valid extension of the investigation period and the timely filing of the charge sheet.

Case Law

Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others [1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 360:(1994) 4 SCC 602 – held inapplicable. State of Maharashtra vs. Surendra Pundlik Gadling and others [2019] 3 SCR 310:(2019) 5 SCC 178 – referred to.