The Supreme Court has ruled that an investigating agency’s statement that it has gathered sufficient material to prepare a chargesheet does not, by itself, mean that the investigation has been completed or that an accused becomes entitled to default bail.
The judgment came in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), in which the Bombay High Court had granted default bail after questioning a further extension of time sought by the investigating agency.
A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar set aside the High Court’s decision and upheld the validity of the extension granted by the Special Court.
The investigating agency had initially been given 90 days to complete its investigation. A further 30-day extension was granted, after which the agency sought another 15 days.
While seeking the second extension, the agency stated that sufficient material had been collected to enable the filing of a chargesheet but explained that additional time was required to analyse and compile the material gathered during the investigation.
The material included witness statements, banking records, electronic evidence and other investigative inputs.
The Bombay High Court had treated the prosecution’s statement regarding the availability of sufficient material as an indication that the investigation had effectively concluded. On that basis, it held that the further extension granted by the Special Court was unsustainable and granted default bail to the accused.
The Supreme Court disagreed with that interpretation.
Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, writing the judgment, observed that the prosecution’s statement could not be isolated from the rest of its extension application. The request, read as a whole, made it clear that investigators were seeking additional time to examine and collate material already collected before completing the investigation and filing the chargesheet.
The Court stressed that a document must be considered in its entirety rather than by extracting a single statement from it.
It held that the existence of sufficient material for preparing a chargesheet does not necessarily signify that every investigative step has been completed.
The Court observed that treating such a statement as proof of completion of investigation would improperly restrict the investigating agency’s authority to complete or undertake further investigation.
The judgment stated that the High Court had committed a serious error by relying on the isolated statement in the second extension application while determining whether the investigation had concluded.
High Court also examined Section 45 UAPA issue
The Supreme Court further found that the High Court had travelled beyond the central issue before it while examining the requirement of sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA.
Section 45 bars courts from taking cognizance of offences under Chapter III of the UAPA without prior written sanction from the Central Government or an authorised officer.
According to the Supreme Court, however, the question before the High Court was not whether such sanction was required for taking cognizance or filing a chargesheet.
The relevant issue was whether the investigation could be regarded as complete and, consequently, whether the extension granted by the Special Court was legally valid.
The Supreme Court therefore found the High Court’s discussion concerning sanction to be disconnected from the core question arising from the extension application.
In setting aside the default bail order, the Court clarified that the investigating agency’s assertion that adequate material exists for a chargesheet cannot, standing alone, be converted into an admission that the investigation has ended.
