The Supreme Court has set aside the Bombay High Court judgment granting default bail to accused persons in a UAPA case, holding that the investigating agency was legally entitled to a further extension of time for filing the charge sheet where investigation, particularly analysis of electronic and financial evidence, was still underway.

The Bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held that the High Court had erred in concluding that the investigation was complete and that the additional time granted by the Special Court was invalid. The Supreme Court consequently restored the order granting the prosecution a further 15 days to file the charge sheet.

Buy Now: Supreme Court Judgments E-Magazine – 5 Month Combo (2026) (1st February – 30th June 2026)

The case arose from an FIR registered on September 21, 2022, at the Anti-Terrorism Squad Police Station, Mumbai, against several accused persons. The FIR invoked Sections 120B, 121A and 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Section 13(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The accused were arrested on September 22, 2022. Their police custody was initially granted for five days and was subsequently extended on two occasions. They were thereafter remanded to judicial custody. The statutory period for filing the charge sheet was initially due to expire on December 20, 2022.

The Public Prosecutor subsequently sought additional time under Section 43-D of the UAPA. The Special Judge granted a 30-day extension from December 20, 2022. A second application seeking another 15 days was filed on January 12, 2023, and the Special Judge allowed it on January 18, 2023.

The accused challenged the extension and sought default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC read with Section 43-D of the UAPA. The Special Judge rejected the bail application as premature because the extended period was still running. A charge sheet was ultimately filed on February 2, 2023.

The Bombay High Court subsequently held that the second extension of time granted by the Special Judge was illegal.

According to the High Court, Section 43-D of the UAPA permits extension of time only where the investigation remains incomplete. It held that the investigation in the case had effectively been completed and that the prosecution was seeking additional time primarily because sanction for prosecution under Section 45 of the UAPA was pending.

The High Court observed that sanction is relevant for taking cognizance and not for filing a charge sheet. It therefore concluded that pendency of sanction could not constitute a valid basis for extending the period available to the investigating agency.

On that reasoning, the High Court held that the accused had acquired an indefeasible right to default bail. It also treated the right to default bail as part of the constitutional protection under Article 21.

The Supreme Court extensively considered the statutory scheme governing default bail.

It noted that Section 167(2) of the CrPC, as modified by Section 43-D of the UAPA, permits the investigation period in a UAPA case to be extended from 90 days up to 180 days, subject to the statutory conditions.

The Court reiterated that default bail is an important statutory and constitutional safeguard. Where the investigating agency fails to complete the investigation within the prescribed period or a validly extended period, the accused can acquire an indefeasible right to seek release on bail, provided the statutory requirements are satisfied.

However, the central question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was correct in concluding that the investigation had already been completed and that the remaining requirement was merely obtaining prosecution sanction.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s interpretation of the prosecution’s second extension application.

The prosecution had stated that sufficient evidence was available to file the charge sheet. The High Court treated this statement as an admission that the investigation had been completed.

The Supreme Court held that this approach was erroneous.

According to the Court, a statement that sufficient evidence exists to file a charge sheet cannot automatically be interpreted as a declaration that the investigation has been completed in every respect. A court must read the prosecution’s application as a whole and consider the actual reasons for which further time was sought.

The Supreme Court observed that a solitary statement in an application seeking extension could not be stretched to curtail the investigating agency’s statutory power to continue its investigation.

The Court placed particular emphasis on the nature of the investigation that remained pending.

The prosecution had informed the Special Court that voice samples had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and that the report was awaited. Bank account statements of the accused were also being verified. The investigating agency further stated that additional evidence was required in connection with similar cases and that data analysis was still in progress.

The Supreme Court noted that investigators needed additional time for analysing and collating witness statements, bank records, electronic evidence and other material.

The Court subsequently explained that the electronic evidence seized during investigation included mobile phones, laptops, pen drives, tablets and hard disks. The forensic data was relevant to the prosecution’s case concerning alleged terrorist activities and the flow of funds.

The analysis of data retrieved from the forensic laboratory, the Court held, formed part of the investigation itself and could not simply be treated as something that could be completed after filing the charge sheet.

The Supreme Court also considered the distinction between completion of investigation and obtaining sanction for prosecution under Section 45 of the UAPA.

The Court agreed with the general legal proposition that sanction is required for the court to take cognizance of specified UAPA offences and that a charge sheet can ordinarily be forwarded to the court without the sanction order.

The Court referred to its earlier decisions holding that sanction is connected with the stage of cognizance and is distinct from the investigation process.

However, the Supreme Court held that this principle did not decide the present case because, on the facts before it, the investigation itself had not been completed.

The Court emphasised that obtaining sanction is not necessarily a mechanical process. The sanctioning authority must consider the material collected during investigation and apply its mind before deciding whether sanction should be granted.

Therefore, where further investigation is genuinely required to analyse forensic data, financial transactions and other evidence necessary to prepare a complete case, the investigating agency cannot be treated as having completed its investigation merely because sufficient material already exists to file a charge sheet.

A significant observation of the Supreme Court concerned the respective roles of the investigating agency and the judiciary.

The Court held that investigation of a crime falls within the domain of the police. Courts ordinarily cannot determine when the investigation in a particular case should come to an end or curtail the statutory powers of the investigating agency, except in exceptional circumstances or where a statutory prohibition applies.

The Court reiterated that the investigating agency must be permitted to determine the course of investigation and complete the investigation in accordance with law.

The Court explained that a charge sheet is the final report of investigation under Section 173(2) of the CrPC and is required to present the prosecution’s case based on the material collected during investigation.

In the present case, the ATS maintained that it required additional time to analyse data retrieved from electronic devices and establish the relevance of financial transactions. The Supreme Court accepted that these activities formed part of the investigation.

The Supreme Court further stressed that filing a charge sheet is not merely a procedural formality.

The investigating agency is expected to place before the court a complete report setting out the prosecution’s case and the material collected during investigation. The Court observed that the sanctioning authority also needs the relevant investigative material before deciding whether prosecution sanction should be granted.

The Court therefore found it inappropriate to assume that the investigation had been completed when the prosecution was still analysing scientific evidence and preparing material for submission to the appropriate authorities.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Strict Procedure for Re-Arrest After Illegal Arrest: Supreme Court