Case at a Glance
In a 2022 Mumbai ATS case under the IPC and the UAPA, the Special Judge twice extended the time for filing the charge sheet, and the charge sheet was filed on 2 February 2023. The Bombay High Court held the second extension illegal and ruled that the accused’s indefeasible right to default bail had accrued on 19 January 2023. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the need to retrieve electronic data from the forensic laboratory could by itself justify extension under Section 43D of the UAPA. It upheld the extension, restored the rejection of default bail and directed the surviving respondent to surrender within 30 days, with liberty to seek regular bail.
On 21 September 2022, an FIR was registered at the ATS Police Station, Mumbai against five named persons and unknown others under Sections 120B, 121A and 153A IPC and Section 13(1)(b) of the UAPA. The respondents were arrested on 22 September 2022 and remanded to judicial custody after 8 October 2022. With the 90-day period due to end on 20 December 2022, the Special Judge on 17 December 2022 granted 30 more days, citing retrieval of electronic data from the FSL and the need to obtain sanction. On 18 January 2023, a further 15 days were granted. The default bail application filed on 20 January 2023 (Exh. 44) was rejected as premature, and the charge sheet was filed on 2 February 2023.
In Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2023, the Bombay High Court on 15 July 2024 held the 18 January 2023 extension illegal because it rested on obtaining sanction, and held that default bail had accrued on 19 January 2023. The State appealed. Respondent No. 2 died on 25 April 2026 while the appeal was pending.
The Key Question Before the Court
Was the second extension of time to file the charge sheet under Section 43D of the UAPA valid, and if not, had the respondents become entitled to default bail?
Investigation Is the Police’s Domain
The Court reviewed the default bail framework under Section 167(2) CrPC and Section 43D of the UAPA, which allows the period to be extended to 180 days on a Public Prosecutor’s report, and the indefeasible right recognised in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 07 SC CK 0028, Sanjay Dutt v. State, (1994) 09 SC CK 0090, Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 09 SC CK 0013 and Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SC CK 0017. It noted that the extension was sought on two grounds — retrieving electronic data from the FSL and obtaining sanction — and held that the use of the word “only” in the order did not mean the data ground was excluded. Relying on State of NCT of Delhi v. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet, (2024) 01 SC CK 0004, it held that data retrieval alone can justify an extension.
The Court also found that the High Court erred in treating the prosecution’s statement that it had “enough evidence” as proof that investigation was complete; a stray statement cannot be read in isolation to curtail investigation. Citing State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha, (1979) 11 SC CK 0023, Judgebir Singh v. National Investigation Agency, (2023) 05 SC CK 0100 and Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 02 SC CK 0026, it said investigation is the police’s domain, courts should not fix its end date, and analysis of forensic data forms part of investigation that cannot be postponed until after the charge sheet. The High Court’s discussion of sanction under Section 45 UAPA was described as “off-route” and unnecessary.
What the Court Actually Held
- The need to retrieve and analyse electronic data from the FSL can, by itself, justify extension of time under Section 43D of the UAPA.
- A prosecution statement that it has “enough evidence” does not mean investigation is complete.
- The Bombay High Court’s judgment of 15 July 2024 was set aside; the Special Judge’s order of 18 January 2023 was held legal and valid, and the default bail application (Exh. 44) stood dismissed.
- Respondent No. 1 must surrender within 30 days and may apply for regular bail if advised.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It clarifies what counts as a valid ground for extending custody under the UAPA’s Section 43D.
- It limits the use of isolated prosecution statements to claim default bail.
- It affirms that forensic analysis is part of investigation, not a post-charge-sheet exercise.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For the Accused
- Default bail under the UAPA depends on whether each extension was validly granted on proper grounds.
- Even when default bail is set aside, the right to seek regular bail on merits remains.
For Counsel
- Scrutinise every ground in the Public Prosecutor’s report; one valid ground may sustain the extension.
- Cite State of Maharashtra v. Momin Moiuddin, (2026) 09 SC CK 3116 with Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet on forensic data as a ground.
- Do not rely on stray prosecution statements to argue investigation is complete.
Key Takeaways
- Section 43D UAPA allows extension to 180 days on a Public Prosecutor’s report.
- FSL data retrieval alone can justify an extension.
- Courts should not fix the end date of an investigation.
- Surrender ordered with liberty to seek regular bail.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is default bail?
It is the right of an accused to be released if the charge sheet is not filed within the statutory period under Section 167(2) CrPC; under the UAPA, Section 43D allows that period to be extended up to 180 days on a Public Prosecutor’s report.
Why did the Supreme Court set aside default bail here?
It held that the second extension was valid because retrieval of electronic data from the FSL could alone justify it, so the default bail right had not accrued when the charge sheet was filed on 2 February 2023.
What happens to the respondent now?
Respondent No. 1 must surrender within 30 days and is free to seek regular bail if advised. Respondent No. 2 died during the pendency of the appeal.
Conclusion
The ruling narrows the scope for default bail in UAPA cases where investigators show a genuine need for more time to analyse digital evidence, while leaving regular bail open.
Practical takeaway: In UAPA default bail challenges, examine every ground for extension; a single valid ground such as pending forensic data retrieval may be enough to defeat the claim.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com