The Supreme Court has set aside a Bombay High Court judgment that had granted default bail to two accused in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), holding that the investigating agency was entitled to additional time to complete its investigation.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar delivered the judgment on September 21, 2026. The case arose from the Bombay High Court's decision dated July 15, 2024, which had invalidated a 15-day extension granted by the Special Judge for filing the charge sheet.
Background
The FIR was registered by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), Mumbai, on September 21, 2022. The respondents were arrested the following day and remained in custody during the investigation.
The Special Judge initially granted the prosecution 30 additional days to file the charge sheet. A further application seeking 15 more days was subsequently allowed on January 18, 2023. The respondents' application for default bail was thereafter rejected on the ground that the extended period for filing the charge sheet had not expired.
The charge sheet was eventually filed on February 2, 2023. The Bombay High Court later held that the second extension was legally unsustainable and concluded that the respondents had acquired a right to default bail.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's approach. It held that the High Court had treated a statement in the prosecution's extension application as proof that the investigation had already been completed.
The Supreme Court observed that a document must be read as a whole and that an isolated statement should not be interpreted in a manner that defeats the context of the proceedings. The Court found that the prosecution had specifically sought additional time to analyse and collate forensic data, electronic evidence, witness statements and bank records.
The Court further stated that investigation is primarily within the domain of the investigating agency. It held that courts cannot ordinarily determine when an investigation should stop or curtail the statutory powers of the police, except where the law or exceptional circumstances require judicial intervention.
The Supreme Court noted that electronic material recovered from mobile phones, computers and other devices required further analysis. According to the Court, understanding how that material connected with the allegations and examining the financial records were investigative steps that could not simply be treated as completed.
The Court also explained that a charge sheet is required to represent a complete report of the investigation. The requirement of obtaining prosecution sanction did not mean that the investigation itself had already ended.
The Supreme Court held that the January 18, 2023 order granting the prosecution an additional 15 days to file the charge sheet was legal and valid. It therefore set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment dated July 15, 2024.
As a consequence, the respondents' application for default bail was dismissed. The Court directed respondent No. 1 to surrender within 30 days, while permitting him to seek regular bail in accordance with law.
The criminal appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra was accordingly allowed.
Case Details:
Case Title: The State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan @ Moin Mistri & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 12932 of 2024
Judges: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
Decision Date: September 21, 2026
-300x169.webp)
-300x169.webp)
