115 UAPA Accused Granted Default Bail Under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C: Karnataka HC

115 UAPA Accused Granted Default Bail Under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C: Karnataka HC

The Present case is relating to riots that took place in Bangalore last after a communally sensitive post by Muzzamil pasha, a relative of an MLA. On 02.08.2020 115 accused in the present case are arrested and booked under sections 15,16,18,20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “UAPA, 1967”) and  section 143,147,148,353,332,436,427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC, 1860”).

The instant Writ Petition is filed by the accused persons against the special NIA court order dated 03.11.2020 where extension of time to file the charge sheet is granted under the proviso to Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA, 1967 and against the order passed in an application filed by petitioners under section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr. P.C, 1973”) dated 05.01.2021.

The Hon’ble bench comprising Hon’ble Justice S Vishwajith Shetty while passing an order setting aside the order of special NIA court extending time beyond 90 days to file a charge sheet and order for not granting default bail to accused under section 167(2)  granted default bail to 115 accused. The court further directed the accused to be released on bail on the execution of a personal bond for Rs Two lakhs with two sureties of the like sum.

Hon’ble Court further observed that “as Article 21 cannot be taken away except according to procedure established by law and as the extension of time for filing of charge sheet is bad in law bail petition for availing the statutory right to default bail cannot be denied .”

It is pertinent to note here that the Hon’ble court citing to the judgments of  Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hitendra Thakur and the case of Sanjay Dutt opined that there is no legal sustainability in order of the trial court under section 43-D(2)(b) of the Act of 1967, because petitioners were not given an opportunity of being heard before passing an order for extending the time for investigation, not they, were notified of such application.

Tejaswi Goda
I'm Tejaswi Goda pursuing a B.A.LL.B course from the University College of Law, Osmania University. My subjects of interests are Human rights law, Constitutional law, Property laws, Criminal laws, Environment laws. Grabbing information, Researching and writing are activities which I'm most interested in. Reading books is my most favourite hobby. Above all working for climate change management is most prominent for me.