| Headnote |
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 167 – Penal Code,1860 – ss. 302, 307, 452, 427, 341, 34 – Arms Act, 1959 – s.25 –Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – ss. 3,4,5,6 – Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967 – s. 13 – Default Bail – A hand grenade wasthrown on the stage of a public gathering – 22 persons were injuredseriously, out of which 3 persons died – An FIR was registered underthe provisions of IPC, Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act andUnlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Pursuant to this FIR,the appellant was apprehended and remanded to custody bySub-Divisional Magistrate – After 90 days in custody, which expiredon 21.02.2019, an application for default bail was made to theSub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate – This application was dismissedon 25.02.2019 on the ground that the Sub-Divisional JudicialMagistrate had, by an order dated 13.02.2019, already extendedtime from 90 days to 180 days u/s. 167 Cr.P.C. as amended by theUnlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Revision petition byappellant – The Special Court allowed the revision petition andheld that the Special designated Court was competent to pass anorder on any application moved u/s.45(D)(2) Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967 – The Magistrate was not competent to passany order on any such application – On 26.03.2019, a charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge, in which ss. 302, 307,452, 427, 341, 34 of IPC r/w. s.25 of the Arms Act, 1959, ss. 3,4,5,6of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and ss. 13, 16, 18, 18-B and20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were invokedfor offences – The Special Judge refused to grant default bail u/s.167(2) Cr. P.C. – Later, another application for default bail wasfiled on 08.04.2019 and it was also dismissed – The High Courtheld that once the challan was presented by the prosecution on25.03.2019, as the application was filed next day i.e. 26.03.2019,the petitioner was not entitled to default bail – On appeal, held:The High Court got the dates all wrong – The application that wasmade for default bail was made on or before 25.02.2019 and not26.03.2019 – The charge-sheet was filed on 26.03.2019 and not25.03.2019 – The fact that this application was wrongly dismissedon 25.02.2019 would make no difference and ought to have beencorrected in revision – The sole ground for dismissing the applicationwas that the time of 90 days was extended by Sub- DivisionalMagistrate by order dated 13.02.2019 – This order was correctlyset aside by the Special Court by its judgment dated 25.03.2019,holding that under the UAPA read with the NIA Act, the SpecialCourt alone had jurisdiction to extend time to 180 days under thefirst proviso in Section 43-D(2)(b) – The fact that another applicationwas filed for default bail on 08.04.2019, would not mean that it willwipe out the effect of earlier application, which was wronglydismissed – The right to default bail are not mere statutory rightsunder first proviso to s.167(2) of the Code, but is part of theprocedure established by law u/Art. 21 of the Constitution – Thisbeing the case, the judgment of the High Court is set aside – Theappellant entitled to be released on ‘default bail’ u/s. 167 (2) of theCode, as amended by s. 43-D of the UAPA. |
