The State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan @ Moin Mistri & Anr. – Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 12932 of 2024 – 2026 INSC 1021 – September 21, 2026 – Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
Appellant and impugned order challenged
The State of Maharashtra through its Home Department and the Anti-Terrorism Squad challenged the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2023. The High Court had allowed the appeal preferred by the accused persons, set aside the orders passed by the Special Judge granting a second extension of time and rejecting default bail, and consequently granted statutory default bail to the respondents. The appellant contended that the High Court committed a grave error of law by treating the investigation as complete merely because a preliminary report mentioned sufficient material, ignoring the fact that comprehensive forensic extraction and analysis of electronic devices were still actively underway. [2]
Factual matrix
An FIR bearing C.R. No. 19 of 2022 was registered by the Anti-Terrorism Squad, Mumbai, alleging serious offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, relating to anti-national conspiracy activities. Following the arrest of the accused persons, the maximum initial statutory period for completing the investigation and filing a charge-sheet under Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was extended once up to ninety days upon the application of the Public Prosecutor. As the investigation involving decryption and forensic analysis of seized digital equipment, financial trails, and overseas communications remained inconclusive, a second application seeking a further fifteen-day extension was moved by the prosecution before the expiry of the extended period. The Special Judge considered the report of the Public Prosecutor detailing the pending forensic analysis and granted the second extension, subsequent to which the charge-sheet was filed within the extended timeframe. [3, 4, 15]
Lower courts verdicts
The Special Judge under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act and related special statutes at Greater Mumbai entertained the second extension application filed by the Public Prosecutor and granted a further fifteen days for completing the investigation, while concurrently dismissing the subsequent default bail application filed by the accused. In contrast, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed the appeal filed by the accused, holding that the second extension order was legally unsustainable because the primary investigation was already complete and awaiting only administrative sanction, thereby making the accused immediately entitled to statutory default bail. [5, 6]
Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent
The appellant argued that the investigation of a complex conspiracy involving electronic gadgets and international financial transactions is the exclusive prerogative of the police, and a stray reference in an extension application regarding sufficient material cannot be construed as a termination of the ongoing probe. It was contended that analyzing seized digital devices and tracing financial trails constitutes an integral component of the investigation itself, which justified the extension sought by the Public Prosecutor under statutory provisions. Conversely, the respondent urged that once the prosecution explicitly records that sufficient material is available to submit a charge-sheet, any further extension solely to secure administrative sanction or wrap up procedural formalities is impermissible under law. The respondents maintained that extending time beyond that threshold infringes upon personal liberty and automatically triggers an indefeasible right to statutory default bail. [22, 25]
Ratio Decidendi
The investigation of a cognizable crime falls entirely within the domain of the police, and courts possess no jurisdiction to dictate when an investigation should conclude or to prematurely brand it complete based on isolated observations in extension requests. A statement in a prosecutorial application noting the presence of sufficient material to file a charge-sheet does not signify that the overall investigation has terminated, especially when specialized analysis of electronic records, forensic data, and financial trails remains genuinely pending. Statutory extensions sought under Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, upon satisfying the report requirements of the Public Prosecutor, are validly granted to enable thorough probes. Consequently, where an extension of time is lawfully granted and the charge-sheet is submitted within such extended period, no right to statutory default bail can ever accrue to the accused. [30, 33]
Important paragraphs
History: Default bail is a special and novel idea of lawmakers in India
9. The concept of default bail is a novel idea of the lawmakers in India. There is no provision for default bail in the Common law countries or any other country like the one envisaged under first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In the United Kingdom, the Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations, 1987 regulate the time limits for custody and trial in England and Wales. These regulations made provisions with effect from 1st April 1987 as to the maximum period during which a person accused of any indictable offence except treason in the Counties of Avon, Kent, Somerset and West Midlands may be kept in custody while awaiting trial or committal for trial. The regulations provide time limits in the Magistrates’ Courts and limit the maximum period between ninety eight days in the County of West Midlands and seventy days in case of proceedings instituted elsewhere during which a person accused of an indictable offence other than treason may be kept in the custody of a Magistrate’s Court. The maximum period of custody in the Crown Court has been provided to be one hundred and twelve days. An application for extension or further extension of a custody time limit may be moved under section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1985 upon a notice in writing to the accused person or his representative and to the appropriate Officer of the Crown Court of such intention. On expiry of the custody time limit in the Crown Court, the prosecution may give a notice in writing not less than 5 days before the expiry of the time limit whether or not it intends to ask the Crown Court to impose conditions on the grant of bail. On the expiry of the custody time limit, the Crown Court shall grant bail to an accused who is in custody pending trial in accordance with the Bail Act, 1975. In the United States, the prisoner has a right to speedy trial under the speedy trial clause of Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of United States. The Speedy Trial Act, 1974 provides time limits, exclusions, sanctions, effective dates, etc. under “Chapter 208-Speedy Trial”. Under section 3161, it is provided that the trial of a defendant charged in an information or indictment with the commission of an offence shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of an information or indictment where a plea of not guilty is entered by the defendant. Section 3162 puts an embargo on the continuance of a trial beyond the time limit and provides that if a defendant is not brought to trial within the time limit required by section 3161(c) or extended by section 3161(h), the information or indictment shall be dismissed on a motion of the defendant.
10. The General Code of Criminal Procedure which was enacted in Germany in 1877 provides under section 121, in its present form, that any remand detention exceeding six months shall be executed only upon showing of a particular difficulty or unusual extent of the investigation or some other important reason or if the case file is submitted to the Higher Regional Court prior to the expiry of time limit, pending that Court’s decision. In Canada, the Criminal Code [R.S.C. (Revised Statutes of Canada), 1985, c. C-46] contains a provision under section 525 for making of an application by the person having the custody of an accused person to apply to a judge to fix a date for a hearing to determine whether or not the accused person should be released from custody, if the trial has not commenced within ninety days. However, if the judge is not satisfied that the continued detention of the accused person in custody is justified, he shall make an order for release of the accused person. The Bail Act, 2000 governs the rules as to granting bail in New Zealand. Under section 7, a defendant charged with an offence not bailable as of right is required to be released by a Court on reasonable terms and conditions subject to exceptions contained thereunder, unless the Court is satisfied that there is just cause for continued detention of the accused person. Just to indicate, the provisions for bail and speedy trial in other countries are also conceptually different from the bail jurisprudence in India.
11. The concept of default bail gained legislative approval in India in the second half of 20th Century. The provisions under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 were different in their scope, ambit and content, and did not deal with the malady of protracted investigation in a criminal case. Section 167 which was spread over four sub-sections in the old Code gave rise to certain dubious practices of filing a preliminary or incomplete police report in the Court. With the passage of time, the provisions under the old Code were found inadequate to deal with the emerging problems in the criminal justice system and large-scale changes were suggested in the old Code. The Law Commission of India in its Fourteenth 19 and Forty-first20 Reports suggested that it is desirable that some limit is placed on the power of police to obtain remand of the accused person while the investigation is still going on. It was recommended that the maximum period under section 167 to complete the investigation should be sixty days in whole and the accused should not be remanded for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time. Eventually, the Code of Criminal Procedure Bill, 1970 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha which referred the Bill to the Joint Committee of the Houses. The Report submitted by the Joint Committee took note of the hardship and misery of the under-trial prisoners and their families when the investigation is not completed quickly by the police and the under-trials are kept in detention on remand for very long periods. It suggested that when an accused remains in custody for ninety days during the investigation he shall be entitled to be released on bail, whether the offence is bailable or not, if the investigation is not complete by the ninetieth day of custody.
Enactment of default bail under section 167 Cr.P.C
12. When the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was enacted, it retained the major portions of section 167 of the old Code with certain changes. The new Code initially provided that the Magistrate can authorise detention of the accused person beyond the period of fifteen days but not for a period exceeding sixty days, provided he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so. Since then, a few changes are made to section 167 and one of the amendments made therein is that the period of sixty days has been extended to ninety days in respect of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, and sixty days in relation to any other offence. The relevant portions of section 167 as it stands today are reproduced hereinbelow:
“section 167 crpc”
13. In the subsequent years, the provision for default bail produced some undesired results for the investigating agencies which were probing serious crimes relating to national security, terrorist activities, economic stability of the country etc. and a need was felt to provide more time for completing the investigation in specified cases where the offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years. A series of amendments were, therefore, carried out in special Statutes especially those relating to national interest and security of the country. The special Statutes such as MCOCA, TADA, POTA, GUJCTOC, and NDPS provide an extended period of time for filing the charge sheet. These Statutes make provisions for extension of time beyond the period of ninety days and up to one hundred and eighty days or one year in NDPS and TADA cases for filing the charge sheet. By the Act No. 35 of 2008, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 under section 167 are made applicable in its modified form to the UAPA cases to the effect that the period of ninety days for completion of the investigation has been extended up to one hundred and eighty days. Section 43D of the UAPA incorporates the provisions of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in its modified form in the following manner:
“ ……………”
Right to default bail explained and this right cannot be denied under UAPA in a mechanical manner
14. First proviso to section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with section 43D of the UAPA create an indefeasible right in an accused person to seek an order for his release on bail and the Court is obliged under law to enlarge him on bail, if the investigating agency fails to complete the investigation within the maximum period prescribed or the extended period and the accused person moves an application for his release and is ready to furnish bail. The right to default bail, as the expression conveys a meaning, accrues to the accused person as a result of a default on the part of the investigating agency to file the charge sheet within the statutory time limit. The legislature has provided an extended period of further ninety days to the investigating agency to file the charge sheet in the UAPA cases. Besides the complex nature of investigation involved in the UAPA cases, the idea behind providing the extended period for filing the charge sheet seems to be influenced by grave consequences of unlawful activities on national interest. Naturally a statutory provision for extension of time under section 43D of the UAPA cannot be denied in a mechanical manner. It is necessary that the Court keeps in mind the very purpose behind a statutory provision and balances the individual’s freedom with the right of investigating agency to carry on investigation.
Evidence collected through the interception of wire from electronic or oral communication is admissible in the trial against the accused person notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act
16. The UAPA has certain special features which are also necessary to keep in mind, while dealing with any matter arising thereunder. It provides under section 47 that any proceeding taken under this Act by the Central Government or the District Magistrate or any officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the District Magistrate shall not be called in question in any civil Court in any suit or application or by way of appeal or revision. It is further provided that any civil Court or other Authority shall not grant injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. The provisions of the UAPA are given overriding effect under section 48 in respect of any provision inconsistent with any enactment other than this Act or any instrument having the effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act. In the trial under the UAPA, the rights of a prisoner which are otherwise available to him under the general laws are restricted to a certain extent. Section 46 makes the evidence collected through the interception of wire from electronic or oral communication admissible in the trial against the accused person notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or any other law for the time being in force subject to furnishing of an order of the competent Authority for interception at least 10 days before the trial, hearing or proceeding.
Prosecution story
18. The prosecution story is that the members of the Popular Front of India, including the respondents, were planning to carry out anti-national activities, spreading propaganda in the Muslim community, and creating hatred against the Hindu populace among the youth of the Muslim community. It is alleged that a group of people intend to overthrow the Government of India and disrupt Indian sovereignty by taking foreign aid for establishing an Islamic State in India. During the investigation, 15 mobile handsets, 8 laptops, 2 pen drives, 2 tablets, 2 hard disks etc. were seized and sent for forensic examination and a report thereof was awaited, when an application for first extension of time was moved. It is stated that PDF data was found in the mobile phone of Mazhar Mansoor Khan alias Majhar Aleem Mansoor Ahmad Khan captioned as “India-2047-Towards Rule of Islam in India”. There were provocative photographs and other materials detected on the Facebook account of the respondent No. 2. The investigating agency recovered a compact disk which contained six audio clips of mobile conversations, details of which were also given in the first application seeking extension of time.
Extension of time to file the charge sheet on the ground of obtaining the sanction order is impermissible in law
24. Taking a leaf from a statement made by the prosecution in the second extension application that “there is enough evidence to file a charge sheet against the accused”, the High Court concluded in paragraph No. 23 of the impugned judgment that the investigation in the case was complete. It further held that an extension of time to file the charge sheet on the ground of obtaining the sanction order is impermissible in law.
IO making statement that there is enough evidence to file a charge sheet doesn’t mean the investigation is completed
25. The Courts have a duty to interpret the language used in the document to assign a true meaning of the expression used thereunder, if the plain literal meaning of the expression does not depict the correct position. A sentence in an order or a judgment cannot be lifted out of its context and interpreted in a manner that defeats the logic behind the decision by the Court. A document has to be read as a whole and not in piecemeal. Some stray statement made in the application seeking extension of time to file the charge sheet cannot be stretched too far. We note that this is not a statement made by the prosecution that the investigation is complete and filing of the charge sheet is withheld awaiting sanction for prosecution by the appropriate Government. A statement made by the prosecution that there is sufficient material for filing the charge sheet cannot be interpreted by the Court as if the investigation in the case was complete. Such a statement made on behalf of the prosecution cannot be used against it to curtail the power of the ATS to complete the investigation or carry out further investigation. The High Court committed a serious error in construing a solitary statement made in the second extension application to hold that the investigation was complete.
Charge sheet can be forwarded to the court without a sanction order till taking cognizance
27. There is no doubt and the legal position is very clear that the requirement of producing sanction for prosecution comes at the stage of cognizance and a charge sheet can be forwarded to the Court without a sanction order from the appropriate Government. “Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh Samra @ Jasbir”7 and “Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.” 29 re-affirmed this legal position.
Police Investigation comes to an end with filing of final/police report
31. The investigation of a crime is the exclusive domain of the police. It is not the jurisdiction of the Court to decide when the investigation in a case should stop. It must be left to the discretion of the investigating agency to decide the course of investigation and to proceed in its own manner. The Court cannot curtail the statutory powers vested in the police except in an exceptional case on facts or where there is a statutory bar to carry investigation by the police. In “The King Emperor v. Khawaja Nazir Ahmad”³⁰ the Privy Council held that the Court cannot interfere with the statutory right of the police to investigate the circumstances of a cognizable crime. In “State of Bihar & Anr. v. J.A.C. Saldanha & Ors.”³¹ this Court held that it is the bounden duty of the Executive through the police department to investigate the offence and bring the offender to book. “J.A.C. Saldanha”³¹ declared in no uncertain terms that there is a clear-cut and demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment. The duty of the police to investigate the crime comes to an end when a report is submitted to the Court requesting the Court to take cognizance of the offence under section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, subject to further investigation to be carried out under section 173(8).
What is meant by charge sheet? Explained
32. A charge sheet is the final report of investigation by the investigating officer under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which requires the investigating officer to submit a report in the prescribed form on completion of the investigation into a cognizable offence. A charge sheet is the gist of the prosecution’s case. It gives a summary of the materials collected during the investigation by the investigating agency. It gives a brief narration of the allegations against the accused person and the manner in which the accused person is sought to be roped in based on the materials collected during the investigation. It is, therefore, necessary that the investigating agency submits a report to the Court after full and complete investigation. This is the case set up by the investigating agency that it needed further time for analysing the data retrieved through the Forensic Laboratory. The investigating agency sought time to analyse how the data retrieved from the mobile phones, computers and other electronic gadgets seized from the accused persons connect them with the terrorist activities intended to undermine the sovereignty and integrity of India. The investigating agency is also required to indicate in the charge sheet how the flow of money in the bank accounts of the accused persons connects them with the terrorist activities. The analysis of data retrieved from the Forensic Laboratory is a part of the investigation and cannot be done after filing of the charge sheet.
How to obtain sanction? Explained
33. The requirement of filing a complete charge sheet is not a mere formality. An order granting sanction for prosecution entirely depends on the materials collected in course of the investigation. This needs no reiteration that the sanctioning Authority may refuse sanction for prosecution if it thinks that the materials on record are not sufficient to forward the person accused of committing a crime to face trial. The prosecution has to establish and satisfy the sanctioning Authority by leading evidence and producing the entire relevant facts that this is a fit case for grant of sanction for prosecution. Anyways, the grant of sanction by the appropriate Government is not a mechanical exercise and the sanctioning Authority is required to apply his mind to the materials produced by the prosecution. Sub-section (2) to section 45 of the UAPA specifically requires that the sanction for prosecution shall be given only after considering the report of the Authority appointed by the Central Government/ State Government. It is, therefore, necessary that the prosecution must produce necessary and sufficient documents to persuade the sanctioning Authority to grant sanction for prosecution. At the cost of repetition, we may indicate that the prosecution specifically pleaded that it required some time to analyse the scientific data collected during investigation and for furnishing a complete report to the Government. While such facts were pleaded in the second application for extension of time, it is not possible, rather imaginary, to think that the investigation in the case by the ATS was complete in all respects.
Conclusion
34. However, the High Court bestowed its consideration to an aspect which was not germane to deciding the legality of second extension of time granted to the prosecution for filing the charge sheet. The entire discussion on sanction for prosecution was off-route. The High Court took a detour bypassing the gist of the prosecution’s case for extension of time to file the charge sheet. Unnecessary as indeed it was, the discussion whether extension of time can be granted to the prosecution for filing the charge sheet on the ground of obtaining sanction for prosecution from the appropriate Government, as if the investigation was complete and a charge sheet was ready to be filed in the Court. The decision of the High Court to interfere with the order dated 18th January 2023 granting second extension of time to the prosecution for filing the charge sheet is palpably wrong and liable to be set aside.
35. In the result, the impugned judgment dated 15th July 2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2023 is set aside and the order dated 18th January 2023 passed by the Special Judge in R.A. No. 946 of 2022 is held legal and valid. Consequently, the application dated 20th January 2023 filed by the respondents vide Exhibit 44 stands dismissed. The respondent No. 1 shall surrender within 30 days and may pray for regular bail, if so advised.
Resource
Judgments
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602 – A case holding that any extension of time for filing a charge-sheet under special enactments must be sought on a report of the public prosecutor indicating specific reasons and satisfying the statutory parameters.
Sanjay Dutt v. State through C.B.I., (1994) 5 SCC 410 – A Constitution Bench judgment establishing that the right to default bail is an indefeasible right that accrues to an accused upon the expiry of the statutory investigation period without a chargesheet or valid extension, which must be claimed before the filing of the chargesheet.
Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 5 SCC 453 – A landmark authority clarifying the exact stage at which an indefeasible right to default bail accrues and crystallizes upon the expiry of the time limit.
Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 616 – A judgment reiterating that the right to statutory default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a fundamental component of personal liberty.
Acts and Sections
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Sections 167, 167(2)), the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Sections 43D, 43D(2)(b), 45), and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 120B, 121A, 153A).
