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

Supreme Court Clarifies That Disability Pension Precedent Cannot Be Mechanically Applied

October 13, 2026 No Comments

This miscellaneous application was filed by the Union of India seeking a clarification of the Supreme Court’s common judgment dated February 12, 2026 (passed in C.A. Nos. 6820-6824 of 2018), which had granted ex-servicemen disability pension with broad-banding benefits and arrears from specified dates. The Union of India contended that the judgment was being mechanically relied upon by various courts and tribunals to alter final orders and reopen stale pensionary claims where the very entitlement to a disability pension was initially in dispute. The Supreme Court disposed of the application by clarifying that judgments must be read in the context of their specific facts and that the common judgment cannot be construed to mean that disability pension with arrears can be automatically claimed in every case. The Court emphasized that each claim must be examined and decided on its own individual merits.

  • Nature of the Application: The Union of India sought clarification regarding the broader application of the Supreme Court’s February 12, 2026 common judgment concerning ex-servicemen disability pensions.
  • Concerns Raised by the State: The Additional Solicitor General pointed out that numerous cases across High Courts and the Armed Forces Tribunal were relying on the judgment to modify final orders and settle stale claims where the underlying entitlement to pension was disputed, leading to significant administrative and financial implications.
  • Core Legal Principle Restated: Citing established precedents, the Supreme Court reiterated that observations in a judgment cannot be read like a statute or divorced from their original factual context.
  • Final Clarification: The Court clarified that its earlier common judgment does not mandate the grant of disability pension with arrears in every case, and all future claims must be adjudicated strictly on their own separate merits.

2026 INSC 1113

Union of India Through Its Secretary & Ors. v. SGT Girish Kumar and Ors. (D.O.J. 12.10.2026)

2026 INSC 1113 click here to view full text of judgment

Next Story

Plaint Amendments: SC Rules on Late-Stage Amendments and the Discovery of Unknown Decrees

October 13, 2026 No Comments

This civil appeal challenged an order of the Orissa High Court which declined to interfere with a trial court order rejecting an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for amending a plaint in a long-standing title suit. The original plaintiff had sought to incorporate foundational pleadings regarding a compromise decree in a separate suit (T.S. No. 105 of 1998) which he discovered later and which purportedly affected a portion of the suit property. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the High Court and trial Court, holding that the statutory requirement of “due diligence” under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 was satisfied because the plaintiff was not a party to the prior compromise suit and only discovered it upon obtaining certified copies. The Court emphasized that a liberal approach should be adopted to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, leaving all questions regarding limitation, maintainability, and the applicability of Order XXIII Rule 3A open for the trial court to determine.

  • Nature of the Original Dispute: The litigation originates from C.S. No. 86 of 2009, filed by the original plaintiff (predecessor of the appellants) seeking a declaration of right, title, interest, recovery of possession, and rectification of registered sale deeds concerning a 0.12-acre property.
  • Discovery of Compromise Decree: During the proceedings, upon searching records following written statements filed by defendants, the plaintiff discovered a compromise decree passed in T.S. No. 105 of 1998 to which he was a stranger, affecting a portion of the suit plot.
  • Satisfaction of Due Diligence: The Supreme Court noted that the explanation regarding the date of knowledge and procurement of certified copies on June 22, 2020, adequately fulfilled the due diligence requirement under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17, and the amendment did not fundamentally alter the nature of the suit.
  • Preservation of Legal Defences: While allowing the amendment subject to costs of Rs. 25,000, the Court explicitly clarified that it was not deciding on the merits, limitation, or the bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC, leaving all such statutory objections open for the contesting respondents to raise before the trial court.

2026 INSC 1112

Haramani Sahoo and Others v. Lalita Nayak and Others (D.O.J. 12.10.2026)

2026 INSC 1112 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Unravelling Non-Signatory Liability: SC Rules on Veritable Parties and the Reach of Arbitration Agreements

October 13, 2026 No Comments

This civil appeal challenged a portion of a High Court order under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which had declined to include the 3rd and 4th respondents in ongoing arbitration proceedings on the ground that they were non-signatories to the original arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the High Court’s order to hold that the 3rd and 4th respondents are veritable parties to the dispute on a prima facie view. The Court reasoned that the ownership of the subject commercial asset hinges entirely on whether a disputed 1995 retirement deed is valid, which directly impacts the subsequent partnership deeds under which the 3rd and 4th respondents claim rights. Consequently, non-signatories intimately linked to the subject matter and core commercial obligations cannot be shut out at the threshold, leaving all questions of limitation and estoppel open for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide.

  • The Core Property Dispute: The litigation revolves around a 3,500 sq. ft. commercial property in Worli, Mumbai, originally acquired by a partnership firm governed by a 1985 partnership deed containing an arbitration clause.
  • The Chain of Reconstitutions: Appellants claimed they never retired and that a 1995 retirement deed was forged, whereas subsequent reconstitutions led to the 3rd and 4th respondents being inducted as partners into a later incarnation of the firm.
  • Application of Cox & Kings Principles: Drawing from the Constitution Bench precedent in Cox & Kings Limited, the Supreme Court noted that arbitration law is autonomous, and courts must not adopt an overly rigid approach to exclude non-signatories whose conduct, relationships, and involvement tie them to the underlying contract.
  • Prima Facie Status and Tribunal’s Jurisdiction: While the referral court must enter a prima facie satisfaction that a non-signatory is a veritable party, detailed contentions regarding limitation, estoppel, and whether the non-signatories are ultimately bound must be left for the Arbitral Tribunal to determine.

2026 INSC 1111

Hemant D. Shah HUF & Anr. v. Chittaranjan D. Shah HUF & Ors. (D.O.J. 12.10.2026)

2026 INSC 1111 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

When E-Payments Meet Paper Rules: SC Quashes Tender Rejection Over “Original” Bid Security Demands

October 13, 2026 No Comments

This civil appeal challenged a Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court which had affirmed the rejection of the appellant’s technical bid for an Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) rail link project. The respondent authorities rejected the bid because the appellant failed to submit the “original” of the bid security, as stipulated under Clause 2.20.6(ii) of the Request for Proposal (RFP), despite the appellant having remitted the security via the official e-payment gateway and uploading its digital receipt. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order, holding that demanding the physical production of an original receipt for an e-payment—where funds have already directly entered the government’s account—is a legal perversity and an impossibility. The Court ruled that rigid adherence to paper-form rules cannot be used to invalidate an e-payment bid security, and consequently directed that the appellant’s bid be processed.

  • Nature of the Dispute: The appellant’s bid for the Bikramshila-Katareah New Line Rail Link Project was disqualified at the threshold because it did not physically submit an original document for its bid security.
  • The e-Payment Exception: While instruments like Bank Guarantees or Demand Drafts necessitate physical handover to establish a legal lien, the appellant chose the e-payment gateway option, transferring funds directly to the respondents and uploading the digital receipt.
  • Perversity of Rigid Compliance: The Supreme Court observed that insisting on an “original” physical copy for a digital money transfer creates an impossible compliance requirement. The Court noted that this constitutes a clear perversity, falling under the recognized exception to the general rule that courts must defer to an awarder’s tender interpretations.
  • Final Directions: The Supreme Court set aside the lower orders, instructing the respondents to facilitate a re-remittance or renewal of the bid security within a specified timeframe so that the appellant’s financial bid could be opened and evaluated alongside others.

2026 INSC 1110

Hardev Construction Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. (D.O.J. 12.10.2026)

2026 INSC 1110 click here to view full text of judgment

Share

The specified slider does not exist.

Recent Articles

Hi Judgments Online

Subscribed
Logins