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 Judgment Summary 15th Sep, 2026

September 18, 2026 No Comments

Supreme Court Judgment Summary 15th Sep, 2026

A Definitive Review on Disability Pension Rights for Ex-Servicemen

This landmark batch of appeals brought by the Union of India challenged various orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and High Courts, which had granted the disability element of service pensions to ex-servicemen. These former personnel had been assessed by Release Medical Boards (RMB) as having disabilities that were “Neither Attributable Nor Aggravated” (NANA) by military service. The Supreme Court addressed the core tension between the protective, beneficial jurisprudence established in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India (governed by the Entitlement Rules 1982) and the restrictive framework introduced by the subsequent Entitlement Rules 2008. Crucially, the Court undertook a deep constitutional and administrative review of the legitimacy of the 2008 rules, evaluating whether they possessed binding legal force and whether they could dilute established beneficial entitlements.

2026 INSC 993 : Union of India & Ors. v. Col. NC Isaac (Retd.) and Connected Appeals (D.O.J. 15.09.2026)

Next Story

Setting Aside Ineligible Selection to Protect Merit

September 18, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the civil appeal filed by Sunita Lahu Panchpande, upholding the Bombay High Court’s judgment that had set aside her appointment as an Anganwadi Supervisor in Nashik District. The appellant, who originally served as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon District, applied for and was appointed to the post in Nashik despite an express restriction in the advertisement and the governing Government Resolution (G.R.) dated November 17, 2001, mandating that applicants must possess ten years of work experience specifically within Nashik District. Although the Divisional Commissioner had erroneously issued a clarification stating that experience from other districts was acceptable, the Supreme Court ruled that a subordinate administrative official cannot issue clarifications contrary to statutory G.R.s and recruitment advertisements. Citing the doctrine that appointments made in disregard of advertised qualifications amount to a fraud on the public, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s order directing the appointment of the eligible wait-listed candidate (the sixth respondent) in her place, while acknowledging the compassionate observation permitting the appellant’s accommodation in her home district.

  • Core Issues Addressed: The Supreme Court evaluated whether a candidate lacking the mandatory territorial work experience stipulated in a recruitment advertisement and government resolution can retain public employment based on an erroneous administrative clarification.
  • Mandatory Territorial Eligibility: A conjoint reading of the 2001 Government Resolution and the specific conditions of the advertisement clearly established that applicants must have accumulated their ten years of qualifying experience as an Anganwadi Sevika within the same district (Nashik).
  • Incompetence of Administrative Clarifications: The Divisional Commissioner lacked the legal authority to issue a clarification that ran completely contrary to the explicit text of the 2001 G.R.; any genuine doubt ought to have been referred back to the State Government.
  • Fraud on Public Aspirants: Reaffirming the principle laid down in Tripura Sundari Devi, the Court emphasized that appointing ineligible candidates in violation of advertised terms without an express relaxation clause constitutes a fraud on public candidates who possessed better qualifications but refrained from applying.
  • Final Outcome: The appeal was dismissed, the High Court’s judgment was upheld, the sixth respondent was awarded the rightful appointment with benefits to be disbursed within two months, and the appellant was granted time until September 30, 2026, to transition out of the post.

2026 INSC 1002

Sunita Lahu Panchpande v. The District Collector & Ors. (D.O.J. 16.09.2026)

2026 INSC 1002 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Acquittal Under NDPS Act Due to Flawed Sampling and Unproven Contraband

September 18, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court of India allowed the criminal appeals filed by the appellants Abdul Rajik and Govind, setting aside the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which had convicted them under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The appellants had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 8 years respectively, following allegations that they were caught carrying charas. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution fundamentally failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized samples, pointing out severe lapses, including the total non-compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act (drawing samples without a Magistrate), missing entries in the malkhana register regarding the exit of samples, a silent carrier constable, and an unexplained five-day delay before the samples reached the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). Consequently, the FSL report became untrustworthy, and with no other reliable scientific proof that the recovered material was actually charas, the Court granted the appellants the benefit of the doubt and acquitted them.

  • Core Issues Addressed: The Supreme Court examined the validity of convictions under the NDPS Act concerning the integrity of link evidence, the absolute necessity of maintaining a secure chain of custody for seized contraband samples, and the legal consequences of failing to comply with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act.
  • Breach in Link Evidence and Custody: The prosecution failed to prove the safe transit of the samples from the malkhana to the FSL. Crucially, the forwarding letter from the Superintendent of Police was dated December 1, 2004, whereas the FSL recorded receipt on December 6, 2004, leaving an unexplained five-day gap with zero evidence as to whose custody the samples remained in during this period.
  • Non-Compliance with Section 52-A: The investigating officer completely omitted the mandatory statutory safeguard of drawing representative samples in the presence of an Executive or Judicial Magistrate, which severely dented the integrity of the seizure and sampling process.
  • Exclusion of the FSL Report: Due to the shattered chain of custody and procedural flaws, the FSL report (Exhibit P-46) lost its evidentiary value and had to be discarded. Furthermore, the informal spot-testing method (burning a small piece of the substance) was deemed unscientific and insufficient to prove the material was charas.
  • Final Outcome: The appeals were allowed, the judgments of conviction and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges with their bail bonds discharged.

2026 INSC 1001

Abdul Rajik v. State of M.P. (D.O.J. 16.09.2026)

2026 INSC 1001 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

The Finality of Tax Settlements: Barring Reassessment After ITSC Orders

September 18, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the civil appeal filed by the Revenue (Income Tax Department), upholding the judgment of the Delhi High Court which had quashed a reassessment notice and order issued against the respondent-assessee, M/s. Omaxe Limited. The core controversy revolved around whether the Assessing Officer (AO) retained the jurisdiction to reopen a concluded assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to disallow housing project deductions under Section 80IB(10) after the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) had already passed a final settlement order under Section 245D(4). The Supreme Court ruled that Chapter XIX-A of the Income Tax Act is a self-contained code. Once an application for settlement is admitted and a final order is issued, it attains absolute finality under Section 245-I, and the regular assessment machinery cannot be invoked to bypass this conclusiveness. The Court clarified that if the Revenue wishes to challenge a settlement order on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation, its sole exclusive remedy is to approach the ITSC directly under Section 245D(6)—not to initiate parallel reassessment proceedings.

  • Core Issue Addressed: The Supreme Court examined whether an Assessing Officer can independently issue a reassessment notice under Section 148 to disallow deductions (such as under Section 80IB(10)) that were part of the total income considerations during a concluded proceeding before the Settlement Commission.
  • Exclusive Jurisdiction of the ITSC: The Court reaffirmed that upon the admission of a settlement application, the ITSC assumes exclusive jurisdiction over the case for that assessment year, placing the regular assessment machinery under statutory abeyance pursuant to Section 245F(2).
  • Conclusiveness of Settlement Orders: Under Section 245-I, orders passed by the ITSC under Section 245D(4) are final and conclusive on the matters stated therein, barring the Revenue from splitting an assessment to re-litigate items through standard reassessment channels.
  • Exclusive Remedy for Fraud or Misrepresentation: If the Revenue discovers that a settlement order was obtained through misrepresentation or concealment, Section 245D(6) provides the exclusive statutory pathway to declare the settlement void by moving the ITSC directly, a route the Revenue unsuccessfully attempted and exhausted in this very case.
  • Final Outcome: The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, confirming that the regular tax authorities cannot initiate parallel reassessments once an ITSC settlement order has attained finality.

2026 INSC 1000

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another v. M/s. Omaxe Limited (D.O.J. 16.09.2026)

2026 INSC 1000 click here to view full text of judgment

Share

The specified slider does not exist.

Recent Articles

Hi Judgments Online

Subscribed
Logins