Indian Judgements

Indian Judgements

Unlawful Activities: Default Bail Granted

Picture of Judgments Online

Judgments Online

In Md. Ariz Hasnain @ Ariz Hasnain v. State of Jharkhand (Criminal Appeal of 2026, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11860 of 2025, 2026 INSC 456), the Supreme Court of India set aside an order of the Jharkhand High Court and granted default bail to an accused charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The trial court had extended the statutory 90-day period for completing the investigation behind the back of the accused, without producing him (physically or virtually) or giving him notice.

The Supreme Court ruled that keeping an accused in the dark during time-extension proceedings is a “gross illegality” that violates both the statutory mandate of Section 167(2) of the CrPC (read with Section 43-D(2) of the UAPA) and the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Crucially, the Court held that the subsequent filing of a chargesheet within the improperly extended period does not wipe away or extinguish the accused’s “indefeasible right” to default bail once it has accrued and been formally claimed.

Details

1. Key Parties and Bench

  • Appellant: Ariz Hasnain @ Ariz Hasnain.
  • Respondent: State of Jharkhand.
  • Bench: Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta.

2. Factual Background of the Dispute

  • The Arrest: The appellant was arraigned as an accused in an Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) FIR on November 7, 2023, for alleged offenses under the Indian Penal Code (Sections 124A, 153A, 120B) and the UAPA (Sections 18, 20, 38, 39). He was remanded to judicial custody on November 8, 2023.
  • Ex-Parte Extension Order: The statutory 90-day investigative period under Section 167(2) of the CrPC was set to expire on February 5, 2024. On February 2, 2024, the Investigating Officer moved an application for an extension, which the Special Judge allowed on the very same day, extending the timeline by 25 days. This entire procedure was conducted behind the back of the appellant, without giving him any notice, copy of the application, or producing him before the court.
  • Claiming Default Bail: Unaware of the secret extension order, the appellant filed an application for default bail on February 8, 2024, because the initial 90 days had lapsed without a chargesheet being submitted. The trial court rejected this bail plea on February 20, 2024, citing its own prior February 2 extension order.
  • High Court Order: The appellant moved the Jharkhand High Court to challenge the validity of the secret extension order. During the pendency of this petition, the police filed the chargesheet on May 2, 2024. Consequently, the High Court summarily dismissed the appellant’s petition on February 21, 2025, declaring that because the chargesheet had been filed within the extended window, the plea for default bail had “lost its efficacy”.

3. Key Legal Issues Addressed

  1. Whether an extension of time for completing an investigation can be lawfully granted under Section 43-D(2) of the UAPA without producing the accused or providing him an opportunity to object.
  2. Whether failing to notify or produce the accused is a mere “procedural irregularity” or a “gross illegality” that violates fundamental rights.
  3. Whether the filing of a chargesheet after an unconstitutional time extension destroys an accused person’s accrued right to default bail.

4. Observations and Ruling of the Supreme Court

A. Mandatory Requirement of Accused’s Presence

The Supreme Court emphasized that the proviso to Section 167(2) of the CrPC strictly commands that no Magistrate/Judge shall authorize detention in police or judicial custody unless the accused is produced before them. This requirement applies with equal force when an extension of custody is sought beyond the initial 90 days under the UAPA. The presence of the accused—either physically or virtually through electronic video linkage—is a non-negotiable prerequisite (sine qua non) for the lawful exercise of judicial remand extension powers.

B. Nature of the Violation: Illegality vs. Irregularity

Relying on established precedents (such as Sanjay Dutt v. State and Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra), the Court made it clear that while an accused is not entitled to a copy of the investigator’s confidential progress report, they must be notified that an extension application is being considered.

  • The Court forcefully rejected the state’s argument that failing to produce or inform the accused was a minor procedural misstep.
  • The Bench ruled that keeping the accused in the dark is a gross illegality that strips the text of Section 167(2) of its meaningful purpose and directly violates the fundamental Right to Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

C. Accrual and Survival of the Indefeasible Right

The Court observed that because the initial extension order dated February 2, 2024, was fundamentally illegal, it was void in the eyes of the law. Therefore, the statutory 90-day clock officially ran out on February 5, 2024, without a valid legal extension in place.

When the appellant filed his default bail application on February 8, 2024, his “indefeasible right” to release was triggered and formally claimed. The Court clarified that since this right was active and invoked before the eventual filing of the chargesheet on May 2, 2024, the subsequent filing of the chargesheet could not retroactively validate an unconstitutional detention or extinguish the accrued right to default bail.

5. Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the trial court and the Jharkhand High Court. The appellant was ordered to be released on default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, subject to the terms and conditions to be determined by the trial court.

2026 INSC 456

Md. Ariz Hasnain @ Ariz Hasnain V. State of Jharkhand (D.O.J. 30.04.2026)

2026 INSC 456 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Admissibility of Deceased Witness Testimony Against Absconding Accused

July 18, 2026 No Comments

Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of West Bengal, ruling that the deposition of a deceased witness recorded in an earlier trial is admissible in a subsequent trial against an absconding accused, provided the requirements of Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) are met. The Court clarified that the provision serves to preserve evidence when an accused deliberately absconds, preventing them from benefiting from the unavailability of material witnesses due to the passage of time. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, which had denied the admission of the victim’s testimony, confirming that the statutory preconditions—the accused absconding and no immediate prospect of arrest—were satisfied at the time the witness deposed.

  • Background: In a 2012 gang-rape case, the respondent and another accused were absconding while three others were tried and convicted. The victim, a key witness, testified in the first trial but passed away in 2015. After the respondent was arrested in 2016, the prosecution sought to admit the victim’s earlier deposition as evidence under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 299 of the CrPC.
  • High Court Order: The High Court of Calcutta had rejected the application, observing that the prosecution had a duty to obtain a specific direction from the Trial Court to record evidence against the absconder during the first trial, and thus the earlier deposition could not be used against the respondent.
  • Interpretation of Section 299 CrPC: The Supreme Court held that Section 299 CrPC acts as an exception to the general rule requiring a witness to be examined in the presence of the accused. It does not mandate a formal, prior order from a Magistrate to record that the accused is absconding; rather, what is relevant is whether the conditions—that the accused is absconding and there is no immediate prospect of arrest—were established at the time the evidence was recorded.
  • Preventing Misuse of Process: The Court reasoned that taking a restrictive view of Section 299 would jeopardize the criminal justice system by incentivizing accused persons to wilfully abscond and await the death or unavailability of material witnesses.
  • Application to Facts: The Court noted that the respondent was a declared absconder when the victim’s testimony was recorded (2013), and he remained at large until his arrest in 2016. As the two essential conditions of Section 299(1) were met, the deceased victim’s evidence is admissible in the trial against the respondent.

Legislative Continuity: The Court noted that the legislature has maintained this principle in Section 335 of the recently enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, reinforcing the intent to ensure evidence is preserved against those who evade trial.

2026 INSC 718

The State of West Bengal v. Kader Khan – (D.O.J. 17.07.2026)

2026 INSC 718 click here to view full text of judgment

Next Story

Insolvency and Bankruptcy: Finality of Resolution Plans and Extinguishment of Sub-judice Claims

July 18, 2026 No Comments

Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Successful Resolution Applicant (Appellant-SRA), ruling that upon the approval of a Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), all claims—including those pending adjudication (sub-judice)—that are not specifically provided for in the plan stand extinguished. The Court held that the “clean slate” doctrine is fundamental to the IBC, preventing unresolved or contingent claims from resurfacing and undermining the revival of the corporate debtor. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court orders and dismissed the civil suit and arbitration proceedings initiated by operational creditors, affirming that they are bound by the terms of the approved Resolution Plan.

  • Background: The Appellant-SRA challenged Bombay High Court orders that allowed a civil recovery suit and arbitration proceedings to continue against the corporate debtor (Bhushan Steel Limited) despite the approval of its Resolution Plan. The respondents, operational creditors, sought to pursue claims that were pending at the time of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
  • Treatment of Claims: During the CIRP, the Resolution Professional admitted the respondents’ disputed claims at a notional value of Rupee One (1) each. The approved Resolution Plan stipulated that because the liquidation value was NIL, no amounts were due to operational creditors; however, a settlement fund was provided for those with admitted claims.
  • The “Clean Slate” Doctrine: The Court emphasized that a successful resolution applicant must start on a “clean slate,” free from “hydra-headed” surprise claims. Once a Resolution Plan is approved under Section 31(1) of the IBC, it becomes binding on all stakeholders, and claims not incorporated therein are deemed extinguished, withdrawn, or abated.
  • Finality of the Plan: The Court noted that the Final List of Creditors attained finality, and the respondents could not seek to reopen or question the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors after the plan’s approval. The Court found no merit in the allegations of fraud, noting that no proceedings had been initiated under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules to challenge the plan’s integrity.
  • No Express Carve-out: Upon a harmonious reading of the Resolution Plan, the Court concluded there was no express “carve-out” protecting sub-judice claims from extinguishment. The plan explicitly mandated that all legal proceedings relating to the period prior to the effective date stand extinguished, except to the extent of the specific settlement amount provided.
  • Observation on MSMEs: In an “Afterword,” the Court observed that the current insolvency framework does not adequately account for the position of small operational creditors and MSMEs, who are often placed at the bottom of the repayment waterfall. The Court suggested that the Legislature and Law Commission examine this to ensure a more balanced repayment mechanism.
  • Outcome: The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the contrary High Court orders, and dismissed the pending civil suit and arbitration proceedings, enforcing the finality of the Resolution Plan.

2026 INSC 717

M/S Tata Steel Ltd. v. Varsha & Anr. (D.O.J. 17.07.2026)

2026 INSC 717 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Excluding Nominated Members from Local Authority Elections

July 18, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court of Karnataka’s decision to exclude nominated members of Town Panchayats from participating in Legislative Council elections for Local Authorities’ Constituencies. The Court ruled that under the constitutional framework established by the 74th Amendment (Part IX-A), nominated members, who serve only in an advisory capacity, lack the democratic mandate of elected representatives. Consequently, their inclusion in the electoral roll was declared unconstitutional, and the Court affirmed the direction to conduct a recount of votes after segregating the invalid votes cast by these nominated members.

  • Background: The election to the Karnataka Legislative Council (Chikkamagaluru Local Authorities Constituency) was challenged because 12 nominated members from four Town Panchayats were included in the electoral roll and participated in the voting. The appellant, who won by a narrow margin of 6 votes, contended that the electoral roll’s finality should be respected.
  • Constitutional Interpretation: The Court held that while Article 171(3)(a) mentions “members” of local authorities, this must be interpreted through the lens of the 74th Constitutional Amendment. Article 243-R establishes that while nominated members may be appointed for their expertise, they are expressly barred from voting in municipal meetings, underscoring their advisory rather than representative role.
  • Democratic Representation: The Supreme Court emphasized that allowing nominated members to vote in Legislative Council elections would undermine the democratic nature of the electoral process, as they are not democratically elected. The Court affirmed that “members” in the context of electoral colleges refers to democratically elected representatives.
  • Finality of Electoral Rolls: While acknowledging the principle that electoral rolls typically attain finality, the Court distinguished this case by noting that the inclusion of the nominated members was void ab initio and unconstitutional. Therefore, the finality of the roll could not be used to validate an illegality that strikes at the core of the electoral college’s composition.
  • Secrecy of the Ballot: The Court rejected the argument that segregating these votes would violate the secrecy of the ballot. It maintained that the higher constitutional goal of preserving free and fair elections and ensuring the purity of the electoral process outweighs the requirement for absolute secrecy in this specific context.
  • Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court’s orders. The Court directed the authorities to proceed with the consequential actions based on the recount results already obtained, ensuring that the election outcome reflects only the valid votes cast by elected representatives.

2026 INSC 716

Pranesh M.K. v. Shanthegowda & Ors. – (D.O.J. 16.07.2026)

2026 INSC 716 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Railway: Establishing Liability in Untoward Railway Incidents

July 18, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court set aside the concurrent dismissal of a compensation claim by the Railway Claims Tribunal and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The Court held that when a passenger dies in an “untoward incident” (falling from a running train), the absence of a recovered ticket does not automatically negate the status of a bona fide passenger. Emphasizing the “no-fault liability” principle under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the Court ruled that once the claimant establishes the foundational facts through an affidavit, the burden shifts to the Railways. Technical lapses and the inability to recover personal belongings should not defeat the humanitarian and welfare objectives of the legislation.

  • Background: The appellant filed a claim for compensation following the death of her husband, who fell from a running train while traveling from Raipur to Ahmedabad. The Railway Claims Tribunal and the High Court previously rejected the claim, citing a lack of proof regarding the deceased being a bona fide passenger (specifically due to the missing ticket).
  • Legal Principle (No-Fault Liability): The Court reiterated that Section 124A of the 1989 Act is a beneficial, “no-fault” provision. It is designed to provide expeditious relief to victims of untoward incidents without requiring proof of negligence by the Railway Administration.
  • Burden of Proof: Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi and Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India, the Court clarified that:
    • The mere absence of a ticket does not disprove that a person was a bona fide
    • The initial burden is on the claimant, which is sufficiently discharged by filing an affidavit stating the facts.
    • Once this is done, the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove the claim based on attending circumstances.
  • Operational Concerns: The Court highlighted the critical issue of chronic overcrowding in Indian Railways. It noted that while the Railway Manuals contain detailed safety and ticketing protocols, the execution often fails. The Court suggested that Railways should increase manpower to better manage safety and ticketing, which could simultaneously reduce such tragedies and provide employment.
  • Constitutional Perspective: The Court observed that using terms like “second class passenger” is outdated and potentially offensive to the spirit of the Constitution of India; it suggested that class designations should refer to the “coach” rather than the “passenger.”

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the lower court judgments. It ordered the Railways to pay compensation of ₹8,00,000 to the appellant within four weeks, failing which the amount would attract interest at 8% from the date of the original claim filing.

2026 INSC 715

Lata v. Union of India & Anr. – (D.O.J. 17.07.2026)

2026 INSC 715 click here to view full text of judgment

Share

The specified slider does not exist.

Recent Articles

Hi Judgments Online

Subscribed
Logins