Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Default Bail in UAPA Case: Judgebir Singh vs. National Investigation Agency (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 1, 2023

Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1011 OF 2023

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI and J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Can a chargesheet filed without a necessary sanction order be considered complete, or does it entitle the accused to default bail? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial 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 an accused’s right to default bail. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, delivered a unanimous verdict.

Case Background

The case originated from an FIR registered on June 2, 2019, following the recovery of hand grenades and a mobile phone from two individuals fleeing police in Amritsar, Punjab. The Punjab Police subsequently added charges under the UAPA. Over the next few months, several individuals were arrested, including Jasbir Singh and Varinder Singh on June 8, 2019, Kulbir Singh and Manjit Kaur on August 18, 2019, and Taranbir Singh on September 11, 2019. The Punjab Police sought an extension of time to complete the investigation, which was granted, 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 and eventually transferred to the Special Court constituted under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act. Sanctions for prosecution under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and the UAPA were obtained later. The accused then filed for default bail, arguing that the chargesheet was incomplete without the necessary sanctions.

Timeline

Arguments

The appellants argued that the chargesheet filed without the necessary sanction under the UAPA and the Explosive Substances Act was incomplete and therefore, invalid. They contended that a valid sanction order is an essential part of a complete chargesheet, and without it, the chargesheet is not a valid police report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. They also argued that the investigation was not complete until the competent authority scrutinized the collected evidence and submitted its report. They further argued that the chargesheet should have been filed directly in the Special Court, not in the Magistrate’s Court, and that the committal proceedings were invalid.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Union of India argued that the chargesheet was filed within the extended period of 180 days, and the right to default bail ceases once the chargesheet is filed within the prescribed time. They contended that the sanction for prosecution is not part of the investigation process and is relevant only at the stage of taking cognizance. They also submitted that the initial filing of the chargesheet in the Magistrate’s Court was not a violation of Section 167 of the CrPC, as the accused were first produced before that court.

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 the provisions of Section 167(2) of the CrPC on the ground that although the chargesheet might have been filed within the statutory time period as prescribed in law yet the chargesheet sans a valid order of sanction passed by a competent authority is no chargesheet in the eye of law and therefore, it is as good as saying that no chargesheet was filed by the investigating agency within the statutory time period as prescribed in law? To put it more succinctly, whether the Court concerned is precluded in any manner for the purpose of Section 167 of the CrPC from taking notice of the chargesheet that might have been filed by the investigating agency in the absence of a valid order of sanction?
2. Whether cognizance of the chargesheet is necessary to prevent the accused from seeking default bail or whether mere filing of the chargesheet would suffice for the investigation to be deemed complete? To put it in different words, whether the grant of sanction is contemplated under Section of the 167 CrPC?
3. A Special Court may not be in a position to take cognizance on account of failure on the part of the prosecution to obtain sanction to prosecute the accused under the UAPA and the 1908 Act, but does such failure amount to non-compliance with the provisions of Section 167(2) of the CrPC so as to entitle the accused to seek default bail?
4. Whether filing of the chargesheet for the offences as enumerated above, in the Court of the Magistrate and the Magistrate thereafter, committing the case to the Court of Sessions or designated Court would vitiate all subsequent proceedings on the ground that Section 16 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, ‘the NIA Act’) empowers the Special Court to take cognizance of any offence without the accused being committed to it for trial upon receiving a police report? To put it in other words, whether the error on the part of the investigating agency to file chargesheet for the offence enumerated above, in the Court of Magistrate and not in the Sessions or designated Court would by itself entitle the accused to seek default bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the CrPC?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION]: The Court relied on this case to explain the object of Section 167 of the CrPC and the concept of “compulsive bail”.

✓ Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam [CITATION]: The Court reiterated the principle that default bail is an indefeasible right that cannot be frustrated by the prosecution.

✓ Achpal alias Ramswaroop and Another v. State of Rajasthan [CITATION]: The Court used this case to emphasize that no court has the power to extend the investigation period beyond what is prescribed in the CrPC.

✓ Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI [CITATION]: The Court cited this case to clarify that the right to default bail is conditional upon the pendency of the investigation.

✓ Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai and Another [CITATION]: The Court referred to this case to support the view that additional documents can be produced even after the chargesheet is submitted.

✓ Satya Narain Musadi and Others v. State of Bihar [CITATION]: The Court used this case to explain the statutory requirements of a report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC.

✓ K. Veeraswami v. Union of India and Others [CITATION]: The Court cited this case to state that a report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC is complete if it contains sufficient material for the trial of the accused.

✓ Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal [CITATION]: The Court relied on this case to emphasize the need for the sanctioning authority to apply its mind to all relevant facts before granting sanction.

✓ Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra and Another [CITATION]: The Court heavily relied on this case to hold that filing of a chargesheet is sufficient for compliance with Section 167 of the CrPC, and taking cognizance is not material.

✓ Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi and Others [CITATION]: The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain that the right to default bail is extinguished once the chargesheet is filed within the statutory period.

✓ Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India and Others [CITATION]: The Court distinguished this case, stating that it was about an incomplete investigation, unlike the present case where the investigation was complete.

✓ Satish Kumar v. State of Punjab and Another [CITATION]: The Court referred to this case to discuss the jurisdiction of Special Courts constituted under the NIA Act.

✓ Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab [CITATION]: The Court relied on this case to hold that all offences under UAPA are to be tried exclusively by Special Courts.

✓ Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Aditya v. State of Gujarat [CITATION]: The Court referred to this case to state that an opportunity of hearing has to be given to the accused before extending time to complete the investigation.

✓ Sayed Mohd. Ahmad Kazmi v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Others [CITATION]: The Court used this case to explain that the right to default bail continues to be enforceable if the accused has applied for it, notwithstanding subsequent actions by the prosecution.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Section 167 of the CrPC and the specific provisions of the UAPA and NIA Act. The Court emphasized that the filing of a chargesheet within the stipulated time is the key factor that extinguishes the right to default bail. The Court also highlighted that obtaining sanction for prosecution is a separate process, distinct from the investigation, and is relevant only at the stage of taking cognizance. The Court also underscored the importance of the Special Courts under the NIA Act for the trial of offenses under the UAPA.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal interpretation (70%), focusing on the statutory requirements of Section 167 of the CrPC, the UAPA, and the NIA Act. While factual aspects (30%) of the case were considered, the emphasis was on the legal framework and precedents.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the argument that the sanction is an integral part of the chargesheet. However, the Court rejected this interpretation, emphasizing the distinction between investigation and prosecution. The Court also noted that the Special Court has original jurisdiction under the NIA Act, which does not require committal proceedings.

The Court’s decision was based on a step-by-step analysis of the relevant legal provisions and precedents. The Court emphasized that the filing of a chargesheet within the statutory period is the key factor that extinguishes the right to default bail. The Court also highlighted that obtaining sanction for prosecution is a separate process, distinct from the investigation, and is relevant only at the stage of taking cognizance.

The Court delivered a unanimous decision, with both judges agreeing on the interpretation of the law and its application to the facts of the case.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“…it cannot be held that the additional documents cannot be produced subsequently. If some mistake is committed in not producing the relevant documents at the time of submitting the report or the charge -sheet, it is always open to the investigating officer to produce the same with the permission of the court.”

“The maximum period of 180 days which is being granted to the investigating agency to complete the investigation in the case wherein the prosecution is for the offence under the UAPA is not something in the form of a package that everything has to be completed including obtaining of sanction within this period of 180 days.”

“The right to default bail is extinguished once the charge-sheet is filed within the statutory period, irrespective of whether cognizance has been taken or not.”

Final Order

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decisions of the Special Court and the High Court denying default bail to the appellants. The Court held that the chargesheet filed within the statutory period was valid, and the absence of a sanction order did not render it incomplete for the purposes of Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The Court also clarified that the error of filing the chargesheet in the Magistrate’s Court instead of the Special Court did not entitle the accused to default bail.

Implications

This judgment has significant implications for cases under the UAPA and other special laws where sanctions are required for prosecution. It clarifies that the filing of a chargesheet within the statutory period is sufficient to extinguish the right to default bail, even if the necessary sanctions are obtained later. This decision reinforces the importance of timely filing of chargesheets and highlights the distinction between investigation and prosecution. It also emphasizes the original jurisdiction of Special Courts under the NIA Act for UAPA offences.

The judgment provides a clear framework for understanding the relationship between the filing of a chargesheet, obtaining sanction, and the right to default bail. It also underscores the importance of adhering to the statutory timelines for filing chargesheets and the separate nature of the sanction process.

This ruling may lead to a more streamlined process for filing chargesheets and reduce the number of default bail applications based on the absence of sanction orders. It may also prompt investigating agencies to ensure timely filing of chargesheets to avoid default bail, while still allowing time to obtain necessary sanctions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Judgebir Singh vs. National Investigation Agency clarifies that a chargesheet filed within the statutory period is considered complete for the purposes of Section 167(2) of the CrPC, even if the necessary sanctions for prosecution are obtained later. The Court emphasized that the right to default bail is extinguished upon the filing of a chargesheet within the prescribed time, and that the sanction process is separate from the investigation. This ruling provides a clear guideline for cases under the UAPA and other special laws, ensuring a balance between the rights of the accused and the efficiency of the criminal justice system.