Jasbir Singh vs National Investigation Agency

CITATION	Criminal Appeal No. 1011 of 2023
Date of Judgement	1st May 2023
Court	The Supreme Court of India
Appellant	Jasbir Singh
Respondent	National Investigation Agency
Bench	Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. In 2019, at the Harsh Cheena, Kukkarwal bus stop in Amritsar, Punjab, during a vehicle check, two Sikh boys on a motorcycle without a number plate attempted to evade the police. In the process, a blue bag held by the pillion rider fell, revealing a mobile phone and two hand grenades.
2. An FIR was filed under the 1908 Act, and the Punjab Police added Sections 17, 18, 18B, and 20 of the UAPA. Jasbir Singh and Varinder Singh were arrested, and other individuals were implicated, with an additional charge under Section 120B of the IPC.
3. On September 4, 2019, the Punjab Police sought an extension of time for the investigation under Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA, submitted to the Additional Sessions Judge in Amritsar just two days before the initial 90-day period from the arrest was set to expire. Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA grants the court the authority to extend the 90-day investigative period under Section 167 of the CrPC to a maximum of 180 days.
4. The Additional Sessions Judge granted the extension, doubling the time for completing the investigation from 90 days to 180 days after affording the concerned parties an opportunity to present their case.
5.  In 2020, the NIA re-registered the case initially filed under Sections 17, 18, 18B, and 20 of the UAPA against the accused individuals after a hearing before the Special Judge, CBI Punjab. The case file was transferred from the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, to the Special Court under the NIA/UAPA. On December 14, 2020, an application for default bail was submitted to the Special Judge NIA, SAS Nagar, Mohali, invoking Section 167(2) of the CrPC read with Section 43D of the UAPA. The basis for the application was the alleged incompleteness of the chargesheet, as it lacked the required sanction under the UAPA, despite being filed within the extended 180-day period.
6. Following the rejection of the plea for default bail by the Special Court, the Appellants filed an appeal, which was subsequently dismissed by the High Court. Unsatisfied with the High Court’s decision, the Appellants then pursued their case by filing appeals before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES

The key question revolves around the entitlement of an accused to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973. The basis for this claim is that, despite the chargesheet being filed within the stipulated time frame, it lacks a valid sanction from the appropriate authority. The matter seeks clarification on whether the absence of such authorization impacts the completeness of the chargesheet, thereby granting the accused the right to default bail.

APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The appellants’ counsel argued that a chargesheet lacking proper sanction is incomplete, and the court cannot take cognizance based on such an incomplete document. They emphasized that a chargesheet serves the purpose of allowing the court to decide whether to take cognizance of the offense or not, and a chargesheet without sanction does not fulfil this requirement under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. The counsel contended that there cannot be a partial chargesheet, and without proper sanction, it does not qualify as a police report.
2. Additionally, the counsel asserted that in cases under the UAPA, mere evidence gathering by the investigating agency is insufficient. They argued that the investigation remains incomplete until the facts gathered are scrutinized by the authority appointed by the Central Government, which then submits its report. This highlights the unique nature of UAPA cases compared to usual criminal cases.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) argued that the right under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, providing an accused with default bail, only applies if the chargesheet is not filed within the specified time or within an extension granted by a competent court under a special statute. According to the ASG, once the chargesheet is filed within the stipulated time or before an application under Section 167(2) is submitted, the indefeasible right ceases to be available.
2. The counsel emphasized that the trial for the accused is already in progress, with twelve witnesses already examined. The accused face serious charges related to national security. The ASG stated that if the accused have concerns about the legality of sanctions or the process of taking cognizance, such issues should be raised before the trial court. At the present stage, there is no room for the accused to demand release on default bail.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala, determined that the question of whether sanction is required or not should be considered at the stage of taking cognizance of the offense. The court emphasized that obtaining sanction is not part of the prosecution process. Consequently, it dismissed the argument asserting that a chargesheet without sanction is not valid, finding no merit in such a contention.

ANALYSIS

1. The Supreme Court distinguished between the stages of investigation and prosecution, emphasizing that obtaining sanction for prosecution is not part of the investigation process but is required to enable the court to take cognizance of the offense. The court clarified that once the final report is filed along with the necessary documents, the investigation is deemed complete, and obtaining sanction can follow afterward.
2. The court noted that Section 173 of the CrPC does not mention the sanction order, and Section 167 of the CrPC pertains only to the investigation, not cognizance by the magistrate. It emphasized that the 180-day period given to complete the investigation in UAPA cases does not mandate obtaining sanction within that timeframe.
3. Referring to its previous decision, the court asserted that the mere filing of the chargesheet within the stipulated time is sufficient, and the question of default bail does not arise if the chargesheet is filed on time. The court also highlighted that if an accused fails to apply for default bail when the right accrues, and subsequently a chargesheet or a report seeking an extension is submitted before the court, the right to default bail is extinguished. The court emphasized that the appellants’ only lapse was not filing the appropriate application for statutory/default bail on time, and this case serves as a lesson for investigating agencies to avoid seeking extensions at the last moment.

REFERENCES

1. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/24236/24236_2022_1_1501_44060_Judgement_01-May-2023.pdf
2. https://www.barandbench.com/news/chargesheet-not-having-authoritys-valid-sanction-no-ground-grant-default-bail-section-167-crpc-supreme-court
3. https://www.legalservicesindia.com/law/article/4920/5/Don%E2%80%99t-Seek-Extension-Of-Time-For-Investigation-At-Last-Moment-Accused-Will-Get-Right-To-Default-Bail-SC

Written by Ritu Kuntal an intern under legal vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.