2021 (3) TMI 1301 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Default Bail - prosecution sanction from the State Government not obtained for filing of charge sheet - submission of appellant is that the Chief Judicial Magistrate Lucknow on 03.06.2017 could not have granted 180 days for filing of the charge sheet as the jurisdiction in respect of offences under the UAPA Act which cases are entrusted to NIA vests only with the special courts - HELD THAT - Suffice to say that the situation in the State of Uttar Pradesh is different and it is not as if there were any notified special courts in existence. Charge sheet/supplementary charge sheet under the UAPA Act was not filed even within 180 days giving cause to the Appellant to file the application for default bail on 03.10.2017 two days thereafter on 05.10.2017 after a lapse of 211 days that this charge sheet had been filed - HELD THAT - The State cannot take advantage of the fact that in one case there is one charge sheet and supplementary charge sheets are used to extend the time period in this manner by seeking to file the supplementary charge sheet qua the offences under the UAPA Act even beyond the period specified Under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure beyond which default bail will be admissible i.e. the period of 180 days. That period having expired and the charge sheet not having been filed qua those offences (albeit a supplementary charge sheet) we are of the view the Appellant would be entitled to default bail in the aforesaid facts and circumstances. In fact in the majority judgment of this Court it has been held that an oral application for grant of default bail would suffice. The consequences of the UAPA Act are drastic in punishment and in that context it has been held not to be a mere statutory right but part of the procedure established by law Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Appellant is entitled to default bail Under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the given facts of the case on the terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial Court - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Jurisdiction of special courts in UAPA Act cases.
3. Filing of supplementary charge sheet under UAPA Act.
4. Fundamental right to default bail.

Default Bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The appellant sought default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming that the charge sheet was filed after 180 days. The court examined the situation and noted that the charge sheet under the UAPA Act was not filed within the stipulated time frame. The court emphasized that default bail is a fundamental right granted to an accused person, as established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court held that the appellant was entitled to default bail based on the circumstances of the case.

Jurisdiction of Special Courts in UAPA Act Cases:
The appellant argued that the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Lucknow did not have jurisdiction to grant 180 days for filing the charge sheet under the UAPA Act, as cases under this Act are usually entrusted to special courts. The state contended that special courts had only recently been notified in Uttar Pradesh, and thus, the competent court at the time was the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The court considered the jurisdictional aspect and concluded that the situation in Uttar Pradesh differed from other states, and special courts had not been established earlier.

Filing of Supplementary Charge Sheet under UAPA Act:
The court analyzed the filing of a supplementary charge sheet under the UAPA Act after the initial charge sheet was filed. The appellant claimed that the supplementary charge sheet was actually a second charge sheet, entitling him to default bail. However, the court determined that the second charge sheet was supplementary in nature and not a separate charge sheet. The court clarified that there is no restriction on the number of supplementary charge sheets that can be filed, as established in previous judgments.

Fundamental Right to Default Bail:
The court reiterated that default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a fundamental right, not merely a statutory one. The court emphasized that default bail is part of the procedure established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court highlighted that in cases involving the UAPA Act, default bail is crucial due to the severe punishments under the Act. The court held that the appellant was entitled to default bail in the given circumstances, setting aside the impugned orders.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, granting the appellant default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court emphasized the fundamental nature of this right and the importance of adhering to the specified time frames for filing charge sheets, particularly in cases involving serious offenses like those under the UAPA Act.