{"id":310851,"date":"2024-01-06T11:00:46","date_gmt":"2024-01-06T05:30:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=310851"},"modified":"2024-01-11T11:59:55","modified_gmt":"2024-01-11T06:29:55","slug":"supreme-court-sets-aside-delhi-high-court-order-default-bail-accused-uapa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/06\/supreme-court-sets-aside-delhi-high-court-order-default-bail-accused-uapa\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court sets aside Delhi High Court order granting default bail to man accused under UAPA"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In an appeal filed by the State against the order passed by the Delhi High Court, wherein the Court has granted default bail to the accused under Section 167(2)<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/a> (‘CrPC’), the division bench of Vikram Nath*<\/span> and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. while setting aside the impugned order, said that the High Court has committed an error in allowing the petition and granting default bail to the accused.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/p>\n

A First Information Report was registered on 16-06-2020 against the accused for offences under Sections 13<\/a>, 18<\/a> and 20<\/a> of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967<\/a>, Sections 201<\/a> and 120-B<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (‘IPC’), Sections 25<\/a>, 54<\/doclink> and 59<\/doclink> of the Arms Act, 1959<\/a>. Pursuant to the said FIR, the accused was arrested on 18-06-2020. He was first remanded to Police Custody for 3 days and then to Judicial Custody and has since been in jail. The period of 90 days expired on 15-09-2020. Before the expiry of the extended period of investigation which was valid until 11-11-2020, the Public Prosecutor moved another application requesting for further extension of time for investigation for a period of 30 days as per the provisions contained in Section 43D (2) (b) of UAPA. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court and the period of investigation was further extended till 30-11-2020. The investigation has since been completed and the Police report under Section 173(2) CrPC was submitted on 26-11-2020 before the extension period expires. The accused moved an application on 11-11-2020 under Section 167 of the CrPC for release on bail, which was rejected by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred a petition under Section 482 CrPC for setting aside the orders extending the time of investigation, which was allowed by the impugned order, giving rise to the present appeal.<\/p>\n

Analysis:<\/p>\n

The Court viewed that the High Court has committed an error in allowing the petition and granting default bail to the accused.<\/p>\n

After perusing Section 43 D(2)(b), the Court noted that the extension for investigation could be granted up to a maximum period of 180 days for the following reasons:<\/p>\n