Supreme Court Clarifies Default Bail and Sanction Under UAPA: Judgebir Singh vs. National Investigation Agency (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 1, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 472
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI and J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Can an accused be granted default bail if the chargesheet filed against them lacks a necessary sanction order? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. This judgment clarifies the relationship between filing a chargesheet, obtaining sanction, and the right to default bail. The bench comprised of Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala.

Case Background

The case began with an FIR registered on June 2, 2019, at Police Station Raja Sansi, District Amritsar, Punjab, after the recovery of hand grenades and a mobile phone from two individuals who fled from a police checkpoint. The Punjab Police subsequently added Sections 17, 18, 18B, and 20 of the UAPA on June 5, 2019. Over the next few months, several arrests were made, including Jasbir Singh and Varinder Singh on June 8, 2019, and Kulbir Singh and Manjit Kaur on August 18, 2019. Taranbir Singh was arrested later on September 11, 2019.

The Punjab Police sought an extension to complete the investigation on September 4, 2019, which was granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, on September 17, 2019, extending the period from 90 to 180 days. A chargesheet was filed on November 15, 2019, before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Ajnala. The case was later committed to the Court of Sessions on November 25, 2019. Subsequently, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) re-registered the case on February 22, 2020, and the case was transferred to the Special Court, NIA, on March 9, 2020. Sanctions for prosecution under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and the UAPA were granted on October 26, 2020, and January 6, 2021, respectively.

Timeline:

Arguments

The appellants argued that the chargesheet filed without the necessary sanction orders under the UAPA and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, was incomplete and therefore, not a valid chargesheet in the eyes of the law. They contended that the final report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC must be complete in all respects, including the sanction order, to enable the court to take cognizance. The appellants emphasized that the investigation cannot be considered complete until the competent authority scrutinizes the facts and submits its report. They highlighted the time limits prescribed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008, arguing that the sanction order must be obtained within a specific timeframe.

The appellants also argued that the chargesheet should have been filed directly in the Special Court, not the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Ajnala. They cited Section 16 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act), which empowers the Special Court to take cognizance of any offense without the accused being committed to it for trial. They argued that the error of filing the chargesheet before the Magistrate and the subsequent committal to the Court of Sessions rendered all further proceedings void.

The appellants relied on several cases, including Fakhrey Alam v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Abdul Azeez P.V. and Others v. National Investigation Agency, Chitra Ramkrishna v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Rambhai Nathabhai Gadhvi and Others v. State of Gujarat, Ashrafkhan v. State of Gujarat, and Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, to support their arguments.

Submissions Table

Submissions on Behalf of the NIA/Union of India

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Union of India, represented by Mr. Sanjay Jain, the learned ASG, argued that the right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is extinguished once the chargesheet is filed within the prescribed time, regardless of whether a sanction order is attached. They contended that the grant of sanction is a separate process and not part of the investigation. The NIA argued that the sanction is relevant only at the stage of taking cognizance, which is distinct from the stage of investigation.

The NIA further submitted that the investigating agency had sought sanction from the appropriate governments at the time of filing the chargesheet. Cognizance of the offense was taken by the Special Court only after the sanctions under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and the UAPA were granted. The NIA also clarified that the chargesheet was initially filed before the Magistrate’s court because that was where the accused were first produced at the time of their arrest, which was in compliance with the procedure.

The NIA relied on the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Dutt v. State and the case of Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi and Others to support their arguments. They also cited Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra and Another to emphasize that the question of grant of sanction is relevant only at the stage of taking cognizance.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether an accused is entitled to seek default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC on the ground that the chargesheet, though filed within the statutory time, lacks a valid sanction order?
2. Whether cognizance of the chargesheet is necessary to prevent the accused from seeking default bail, or whether mere filing of the chargesheet suffices?
3. Whether the failure to obtain sanction to prosecute under the UAPA and the 1908 Act amounts to non-compliance with Section 167(2) of the CrPC, entitling the accused to default bail?
4. Whether filing the chargesheet in the Court of the Magistrate and the subsequent committal to the Court of Sessions vitiates all subsequent proceedings, given that Section 16 of the NIA Act empowers the Special Court to take cognizance without committal?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed each submission made by the parties. The court held that the chargesheet filed by the investigating agency was complete for the purpose of Section 167 of the CrPC, even though the sanction orders were not attached. The court emphasized that the sanction is required only for taking cognizance of the offense and not for completing the investigation.

The court also addressed the issue of filing the chargesheet in the Magistrate’s court instead of the Special Court. While acknowledging that this was a procedural error, the court held that it did not invalidate the proceedings or create a right to default bail. The court reiterated that the Special Court is empowered to take cognizance of offenses without committal.

The court clarified that the right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is extinguished once the chargesheet is filed within the stipulated time period, regardless of whether cognizance has been taken. The court relied on several precedents, including Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain, to support its decision.

Treatment of Submissions

Treatment of Authorities

The following table demonstrates as to how each authority was viewed by the Court:

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, in this landmark judgment, clarified that the filing of a chargesheet within the stipulated time under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is sufficient to extinguish the right to default bail, even if the chargesheet lacks a valid sanction order. The court emphasized that the sanction is a separate process and not part of the investigation. The court also held that while filing the chargesheet in the Magistrate’s court was a procedural error, it does not invalidate the proceedings or create an indefeasible right to default bail. The judgment provides clarity on the interplay between the investigation, sanction, and the right to default bail, particularly in cases involving serious offenses under the UAPA and other special laws.

Flowchart: Process from FIR to Cognizance