Case at a Glance
Three residents of Kathua district, arrested in April 2025 in a case registered under the UAPA, BNS, Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act, sought default bail on the ground that the State Investigating Agency had filed an incomplete charge-sheet only to defeat their right. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India, (2023) 04 SC CK 0108. A Division Bench of the J&K and Ladakh High Court held that the charge-sheet, backed by witness statements, forensic evidence and call records, reflected a completed investigation into the accused’s involvement, and that continuing efforts to trace links with other militants did not make it incomplete. The appeal was dismissed.
FIR No. 61/2025, dated 28 March 2025, was registered by the State Investigating Agency, Jammu, under Sections 13, 16, 18, 23, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Sections 61(2), 103, 109, 147, 149 and 249 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Sections 7 and 27 of the Arms Act. The three appellants, residents of Kathua district, were arrested on 28 April 2025, and a charge-sheet was filed on 25 October 2025.
The appellants applied for default bail, arguing that the charge-sheet was incomplete because it recorded that investigation was continuing into their links with slain or absconding terrorists. The 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, sitting as the Designated Court under Section 22 of the NIA Act, dismissed the application on 28 February 2026 and also declined bail on merits. The appellants appealed to the High Court.
The Key Question Before the Court
Does a right to default bail under Section 43-D(2)(a) of the UAPA read with Section 187 BNSS accrue where the charge-sheet is filed within time but records that investigation into the accused’s wider links is still continuing?
When Is a Charge-Sheet ‘Incomplete’?
The appellants relied on Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 352), where the Supreme Court held that a charge-sheet filed without completing investigation, only to defeat default bail, does not extinguish that right, and treated default bail as part of the fundamental right under Article 21. The Bench quoted the principle: “Without completing the investigation of a case, a charge-sheet or prosecution complaint cannot be filed”. It also noted Directorate of Enforcement v. Manpreet Singh Talwar (SLP (Crl) No. 5724/2023), where the Supreme Court allowed courts to consider default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC independently of Ritu Chhabaria, pending the Union’s contemplated review.
Applying those principles, Justice Yash Paul Bourney, writing for the Bench, examined the charge-sheet. It contained statements under Sections 161 and 164, forensic evidence and call detail records, and recorded that offences under the UAPA were established against the appellants. The Court accepted the State’s position that the investigation was complete as to the accused’s involvement, and that continuing efforts to link them with other terrorists were a matter for a possible supplementary charge-sheet. Those efforts did not make the charge-sheet incomplete. The Court also found no ground to interfere with the trial court’s refusal of bail on merits.
What the Court Actually Held
- Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India protects default bail where a charge-sheet is filed without completing investigation only to defeat that right.
- A charge-sheet that reflects completed investigation of the accused’s involvement, supported by statements, forensic material and call records, is not incomplete merely because investigation into wider links continues.
- No right to default bail under Section 43-D(2)(a) UAPA read with Section 187 BNSS had accrued; nor was there ground to interfere with refusal of bail on merits.
- The appeal was dismissed, with a copy sent to the trial court for information and expeditious trial.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Default bail disputes in serious cases often turn on whether the charge-sheet was genuine or filed to beat the deadline; this ruling shows how courts test that.
- It confirms that ongoing investigation into other persons or links does not, by itself, defeat a timely charge-sheet.
- It applies Ritu Chhabaria while noting the Supreme Court’s later order in Manpreet Singh Talwar.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For the Accused and Families
- Default bail depends on whether a complete charge-sheet is filed within the statutory period, not on whether every line of inquiry is closed.
- Bail on merits under the UAPA is assessed separately from default bail.
For Counsel
- To invoke Ritu Chhabaria, show that the charge-sheet lacks the material needed on the accused’s own involvement, not merely that investigation of others continues.
- Scrutinise whether statements, forensic reports and call records relied on are actually part of the charge-sheet.
- Track the effect of Directorate of Enforcement v. Manpreet Singh Talwar when relying on Ritu Chhabaria.
Key Takeaways
- Ongoing probe into wider terror links did not make the charge-sheet incomplete.
- Charge-sheet backed by statements, forensic evidence and call records was held complete as to the accused.
- Default bail under Section 43-D(2)(a) UAPA read with Section 187 BNSS was refused.
- The trial court was asked to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is default bail?
It is the right of an accused to be released on bail if the investigating agency does not file the charge-sheet within the period allowed by law; under the UAPA this period can be extended under Section 43-D(2).
Can a charge-sheet be ‘incomplete’ and still defeat default bail?
Under Ritu Chhabaria, a charge-sheet filed without completing investigation only to defeat default bail does not extinguish the right. Here, however, the High Court found the investigation complete as to the accused.
Does further investigation after the charge-sheet help the accused?
Not by itself. The Court held that continuing efforts to trace links with other terrorists were a matter for a possible supplementary charge-sheet and did not make the charge-sheet incomplete.
Conclusion
The Division Bench drew a line between a charge-sheet that is a placeholder and one that sets out the case against the accused while other leads remain open. The second kind ends the right to default bail.
Practical takeaway: A default bail plea based on an ‘incomplete’ charge-sheet must show gaps in the case against the accused himself; pending investigation into others will not be enough.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com