Reiterating that sanction under Section 45 UAPA is required only for taking cognizance and not for filing the charge sheet, the Supreme Court has held that the High Court erred in reading a stray statement in the prosecution’s application out of context to conclude that the investigation was complete. The Apex Court explained that investigation is the exclusive domain of the police, and courts cannot decide when the investigation in a case should stop or curtail the statutory powers of the investigating agency, except in exceptional cases or where there is a statutory bar.
The Court said that a stray or solitary statement made in an application seeking extension of time cannot be lifted out of context and used to conclude that the investigation is complete, and documents and orders must be read as a whole and not in piecemeal. The Court also said that the right to default bail under the first proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC does not accrue to an accused where the charge sheet is filed within the statutory or extended period, even if the extended period was granted on the ground of pending prosecution sanction.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that the High Court committed a serious error in reading the Special Judge’s order dated 17th December 2022. The expression ‘on that ground only’ used by the Special Judge did not mean that the ground of obtaining sanction was rejected, rather, it conveyed that the ground of retrieval of electronic data was itself a sufficient ground to grant the extension, though sanction for prosecution was also a material ground.
The Court further observed that the High Court erroneously lifted a stray statement made by the prosecution in the second extension application, i.e., ‘there is enough evidence to file a charge sheet against the accused’, out of context and used it to conclude that the investigation was complete. The Court noted that such a solitary statement could not be stretched to curtail the power of the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) to complete the investigation or carry out further investigation.
The Court also observed that the entire discussion by the High Court on whether extension could be granted on the ground of awaiting sanction was off-route and unnecessary, as the prosecution had specifically pleaded that it required time to analyse the scientific data collected during investigation. The Court placed reliance on the decision in State of NCT of Delhi v. Raj Kumar [(2024) 2 SCC 632], which approved extension of time for filing the charge sheet on the ground of seeking sanction for prosecution and obtaining the FSL Report.
Briefly, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 21st September 2022 at the ATS Police Station, Mumbai against five accused persons, including Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan @ Moin Mistri and Asif Aminul Hussain Khan Adhikari (Respondents herein), for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 121A and 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The Respondents were arrested on 22nd September 2022 and remanded to custody. The 90-day statutory period for filing the charge sheet was to expire on 20th December 2022.
The Special Judge granted a first extension of 30 days on 17th December 2022 on the grounds of retrieval of electronic evidence from the FSL and obtaining sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA. A second extension application was moved on 12th January 2023, and the Special Judge granted a further 15 days on 18th January 2023. The Respondents’ default bail application filed on 20th January 2023 was dismissed as premature by the Special Judge. The charge sheet was ultimately filed on 2nd February 2023. The Bombay High Court, by its judgment dated 15th July 2024, allowed the Respondents criminal appeal and granted them default bail, holding that the second extension of time was illegal.
