The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed that the statutory right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, as modified by Section 187(2) of the BNSS, is suspended when a court lawfully extends the investigation period to 180 days under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, provided the extension is grounded in a valid report of the Public Prosecutor.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants - Aytu Usendi, Dhoba Badhda S/o Bondga, and Dhoba Badhda S/o Gore Badhda - were arrested on 27.01.2025 in connection with Crime No.13/2024 registered at Police Station Kohkameta, District Narayanpur. They were accused of involvement in unlawful and extremist activities linked to banned organisations, including offences under the BNS 2023, Arms Act 1959, Explosive Substances Act 1908, and multiple provisions of the UAPA 1967. They were remanded to judicial custody at Sub-Jail Narayanpur on the date of arrest.
Key Facts
- The appellants were arrested on 27.01.2025 and placed under judicial custody.
- On 26.04.2025, the trial court granted an extension of the investigation period from 90 days to 180 days under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA.
- The application for extension was moved by the SDO(P) Narayanpur, supported by an affidavit, and approved by the court without any recorded report from the Public Prosecutor.
- The appellants filed an application for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC read with Section 187(2) BNSS on 29.05.2025, contending that the 90-day statutory limit for investigation had expired.
- The Special Judge (NIA Act) rejected the bail application on 10.06.2025, holding that the 180-day extension under UAPA was valid and the application was not maintainable.
- The charge sheet was ultimately filed on 29.07.2025, within the extended 180-day period.
Procedural History
- 27.01.2025: Arrest of appellants and judicial remand commenced.
- 26.04.2025: Trial court extended investigation period to 180 days under Section 43-D(2)(b) UAPA based on SDO(P) affidavit.
- 29.05.2025: Appellants filed application for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC read with Section 187(2) BNSS.
- 10.06.2025: Special Judge rejected bail application, holding extension valid.
- 29.07.2025: Charge sheet filed before Special Court (NIA Act).
- 10.06.2025: Order impugned.
- 24.03.2026: Chhattisgarh High Court heard appeal under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellants: Argued that the extension under Section 43-D(2)(b) was void ab initio because it lacked a report from the Public Prosecutor indicating progress of investigation and specific reasons for detention. They contended that the absence of such a report rendered the extension illegal, thereby reviving their right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC.
For the State: Maintained that the extension was lawful and that the court had considered the nature of the offences, complexity of the case, and absconding accused. Relied on Ramesh Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh (CRA No.2656 of 2025, decided 02.03.2026) to support the validity of the extension.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought quashing of the order dated 10.06.2025 and grant of default bail, arguing that their continued detention beyond 90 days without a valid extension violated Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA permits a court to extend the investigation period to 180 days based solely on an affidavit by a subordinate officer, or whether a reasoned report from the Public Prosecutor is a mandatory precondition for such extension, and if the absence of such a report invalidates the extension and revives the right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC read with Section 187(2) BNSS.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel for the appellants contended that Section 43-D(2)(b) imposes three cumulative conditions for extension: (i) a report of the Public Prosecutor, (ii) that report must indicate progress of investigation, and (iii) it must specify specific reasons for continued detention. The absence of any such report, he argued, rendered the extension order a nullity. He relied on Supriyo v. Union of India and Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb to assert that statutory safeguards under UAPA cannot be diluted, and that failure to comply with mandatory conditions renders the detention unlawful. He further submitted that the SDO(P) affidavit was not a substitute for a Public Prosecutor’s report under the statute.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the trial court had exercised judicial scrutiny by examining the nature of the offences, the complexity of the case, and the involvement of absconding accused. It argued that the affidavit submitted by the SDO(P) was sufficient to satisfy the court’s satisfaction under Section 43-D(2)(b), and that the court’s order dated 26.04.2025 was valid. It further relied on Ramesh Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh, where the same court had upheld a similar extension, to argue that the present case was squarely covered by precedent. The State maintained that the charge sheet was filed within the extended period, and therefore, the bail application was premature and not maintainable.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed textual analysis of Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA, which explicitly states that the extension of investigation beyond 90 days is permissible only if the court is satisfied with "the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of ninety days."
"Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Court may, if it is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of ninety days, extend the said period up to one hundred and eighty days."
The Court observed that the statutory language is unambiguous: the Public Prosecutor’s report is not a mere formality but a mandatory condition precedent. The court’s satisfaction is statutorily tethered to the existence of such a report. The affidavit submitted by the SDO(P) Narayanpur, while indicating the need for more time, did not fulfill the statutory requirement of a report from the Public Prosecutor.
The Court acknowledged the State’s reliance on Ramesh Mandavi, but noted that in that case, the Public Prosecutor’s report had been placed on record. Here, no such report existed. The Court held that the absence of the Public Prosecutor’s report rendered the extension order legally defective and ultra vires.
However, the Court then addressed a critical procedural point: the charge sheet was filed on 29.07.2025, which was within the 180-day period (i.e., 27.01.2025 + 180 days = 25.07.2025). The bail application was filed on 29.05.2025, which was 92 days after arrest - well before the 180-day deadline expired. The Court held that since the charge sheet was filed before the extended period lapsed, the appellants’ right to default bail never accrued. The defect in the extension order was rendered irrelevant by the timely filing of the charge sheet.
The Court emphasized that default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC arises only when the investigation is not completed and no valid extension is granted by the time the statutory period expires. Here, even if the extension was procedurally flawed, the charge sheet was filed before the 180-day period ended. Therefore, the right to default bail did not vest.
The Court concluded that while the extension order was technically defective, the outcome was not legally unsustainable because the charge sheet was filed in time. The appellants’ detention was not rendered unlawful by the procedural lapse, as the investigation concluded before the statutory deadline expired.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Court held that although the extension order dated 26.04.2025 was procedurally defective for lacking a Public Prosecutor’s report, the charge sheet was filed on 29.07.2025, within the 180-day period under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA. Consequently, the appellants’ right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC read with Section 187(2) BNSS never accrued. The order dated 10.06.2025 rejecting the bail application was upheld. Pending applications are disposed of. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Defects in Extension Do Not Automatically Entitle Bail
- Practitioners must now argue that even if the Public Prosecutor’s report is missing under Section 43-D(2)(b), default bail is not automatic if the charge sheet is filed before the extended period expires.
- The defect in the extension order is curable by timely filing of the charge sheet, rendering the bail application infructuous.
- This creates a narrow window: if the charge sheet is filed before the 180-day period ends, the accused cannot claim default bail even if the extension was invalid.
Public Prosecutor’s Report Is Non-Negotiable for Valid Extension
- Any future application for extension under Section 43-D(2)(b) must include a written report from the Public Prosecutor, not a subordinate officer’s affidavit.
- Courts must record explicit satisfaction that the report meets all three statutory conditions: progress, reasons, and specificity.
- Failure to obtain such a report will render the extension void, but only if the charge sheet is not filed before the 180-day period lapses.
Timing of Charge Sheet Supersedes Procedural Irregularities
- The critical date for default bail is not the date of the flawed extension, but the date of charge sheet filing.
- Defence counsel should focus on whether the charge sheet was filed before the statutory deadline, not merely on the validity of the extension order.
- This judgment reinforces that statutory timelines are functional, not merely formalistic - compliance with the deadline trumps procedural irregularities if the investigation concludes on time.
