Case Title: Md. ARIZ HASNAIN @ ARIZ HASNAIN VERSUS STATE OF JHARKHAND
The case arose out of an FIR registered on November 7, 2023. The appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on November 8, 2023. As the statutory 90-day period for filing the chargesheet was nearing completion, the investigating agency moved an application on February 2, 2024, seeking an extension of time by 25 days under Section 43-D(2) of the UAPA.
The Special Judge allowed the extension request. However, the accused was neither physically nor virtually produced before the court nor informed that such an application was being considered. No opportunity of hearing was granted to him. The extension order merely recorded that the investigation was still pending and mechanically extended the time for filing the chargesheet.
Subsequently, on February 8, 2024, after expiry of the initial 90-day period, the appellant filed an application seeking default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The charge sheet came to be filed only on May 2, 2024 after multiple further extensions were granted.
The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the appellant’s challenge, holding that since the charge sheet had been filed within the “extended period,” the right to default bail no longer survived.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the accused moved to the Supreme Court.
Setting aside the impugned order, the order pronounced by Justice Mehta observed that the order extending the time limit for submission of a charge sheet was vitiated, for want of providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused and non-application of mind by the trial court.
The Court said that the petitioner’s indefeasible right to be released on bail was violated, as the investigation agency failed to submit the charge sheet within 90 days.
“In view of the fact that the order dated 2nd February, 2024 extending the time for completion of investigation has been held to be illegal, and since the chargesheet came to be filed well after the expiry of the statutory period of 90 days, the appellant’s right to claim default bail stood crystallized upon the filing of the application under Section 167(2) of the CrPC and the appellant acquired an indefeasible right to be released on bail.”
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail.