The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed an appeal filed by two accused seeking default bail in a case involving allegations under the NDPS Act, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and the Arms Act. The court held that the investigation period had been validly extended and that no statutory right to default bail had accrued to the appellants.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an FIR registered in June 2021 after police intercepted a vehicle in Uri, Baramulla district. According to the prosecution, weapons, ammunition, grenades, suspected heroin, and cash were recovered during the operation. Subsequent investigation led to the arrest of several individuals, including appellants Riyaz Ahmad Hajam and Adil Bashir.
The accused later sought default bail, arguing that the charge sheet relating to offences under the UAPA had not been filed within the statutory period. They also challenged the trial court's decision granting investigators additional time to complete the probe.
Counsel for the appellants argued that the investigating agency had substantially completed its work before seeking an extension and that the additional time granted under Section 36A of the NDPS Act was not justified. The appellants contended that supplementary charge sheets were filed in stages only to defeat their right to default bail.
They further maintained that because offences under both the NDPS Act and UAPA were involved, the prosecution could not selectively rely on one statute to secure more time for investigation.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar examined the record and found that the prosecution had provided specific reasons for seeking additional time. These included obtaining expert analysis of seized mobile phones, securing the custody of additional accused persons, and obtaining statutory sanction required under the UAPA.
The bench observed that Section 36A of the NDPS Act expressly permits extension of the investigation period beyond 180 days when justified by the progress of the investigation.
Referring to previous judicial precedents, the court noted that once a valid charge sheet is filed within the prescribed or lawfully extended period, the right to default bail ceases to exist.
“The record demonstrates that, prior to expiry of the statutory period, the prosecution had sought extension of time under Section 36A of the NDPS Act by placing before the learned trial Court specific reasons necessitating further investigation,” the bench observed.
The High Court also rejected the claim that the initial charge sheet was an incomplete report filed merely to block the accused from obtaining default bail.
According to the court, the charge sheet filed within the extended period contained material gathered during the investigation under the NDPS Act, while further investigation and supplementary filings after obtaining sanction under the UAPA were legally permissible.
The bench further held that the NDPS Act and the UAPA are special statutes that must be interpreted harmoniously, especially in cases involving allegations of narco-terror financing.
Finding no illegality or jurisdictional error in the trial court's orders dated 14 December 2021 and 27 May 2022, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
“The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed,” the court held while vacating any interim directions that were operating in the matter.
Case Details
Case Title: Riyaz Ahmad Hajam & Another v. Union Territory through SHO Police Station Uri District Baramulla
Case Number: CrlA(D) No. 40/2022
Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar
Judges: Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar
Decision Date: 30 May 2026
