Supreme Court: a UAPA extension to finish forensic analysis is valid, so no default bail

The Supreme Court set aside a Bombay High Court judgment that had granted default bail to accused persons arrested by Maharashtra's Anti-Terrorism Squad in September 2022 on charges under Sections 120B, 121A and 153A IPC and Section 13(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Section 43D(2) of the UAPA modifies Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The ordinary 90-day limit for completing investigation may be extended up to 180 days if the court is satisfied, on the Public Prosecutor's report of progress, that more time is needed. The Special Judge granted an extension of 30 days and then a second extension of 15 days, and the chargesheet was filed within it.

The High Court held that the second extension was illegal because the prosecution needed time for sanction, not investigation, so the accused's right to default bail had accrued. The Supreme Court disagreed. It held that the prosecution had sought time to analyse data from seized phones and computers and to trace money flows, which is part of investigation and cannot be done after the chargesheet is filed. A chargesheet must follow a complete investigation, and the High Court's focus on sanction was off-route.

With the extension valid, no right to default bail arose. The surviving respondent was directed to surrender within 30 days, with liberty to seek regular bail.