Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 12-10-2020 in case of petitioner name Bikramjit Singh vs State of Punjab
| |

Default Bail and UAPA: Supreme Court Grants Relief to Bikramjit Singh

The case of Bikramjit Singh vs. The State of Punjab is a landmark ruling addressing the right to default bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and the jurisdiction of Special Courts under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008. The Supreme Court ruled that the Special Court alone has the exclusive jurisdiction to extend the period of detention under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA.

The judgment is crucial in reinforcing the principle that procedural lapses by investigating agencies cannot curtail an accused’s fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It clarifies that an application for default bail filed before the submission of a charge sheet must be granted.

Background of the Case

The case arose from an FIR dated 18 November 2018, relating to an explosion at a religious congregation in Amritsar, Punjab. The explosion, allegedly caused by a hand grenade, resulted in the deaths of three people and injuries to 22 others. The Punjab Police arrested the appellant, Bikramjit Singh, on 22 November 2018, and he was remanded to judicial custody.

The case involved charges under:

  • Indian Penal Code (IPC): Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 452 (house trespass), 427 (mischief causing damage), 341 (wrongful restraint), and 34 (common intention).
  • Arms Act, 1959: Section 25 (possession of arms).
  • Explosive Substances Act, 1908: Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 (relating to explosives used for unlawful purposes).
  • UAPA: Sections 13 (unlawful activities), 16 (terrorist act), 18 (conspiracy to commit a terrorist act), 18-B (recruiting for terrorism), and 20 (membership of a terrorist gang).

Legal Controversy and Trial Court Rulings

The central legal issue in the case was whether the extension of time for filing the charge sheet under the UAPA should have been granted by a Special Court rather than a Magistrate.

  • On 13 February 2019, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Ilaqa Magistrate) extended the period for filing the charge sheet from 90 to 180 days under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, as modified by the UAPA.
  • On 21 February 2019, after the expiration of 90 days in custody, the appellant applied for default bail.
  • On 25 February 2019, the Magistrate rejected the bail application, citing the earlier extension.
  • On 25 March 2019, the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court under the NIA Act) ruled that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to extend time, and such powers lay exclusively with the Special Court.
  • On 26 March 2019, a charge sheet was filed before the Special Court.
  • On 11 April 2019, the Special Court dismissed another default bail application, citing that the charge sheet had already been filed.
  • On 30 October 2019, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the dismissal of default bail.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Bikramjit Singh)

The petitioner, represented by senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, argued:

  • The power to extend the investigation period beyond 90 days under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA lies exclusively with the Special Court, not a Magistrate.
  • The Special Court’s order of 25 March 2019 set aside the Magistrate’s extension, rendering the charge sheet of 26 March 2019 invalid for denying default bail.
  • The right to default bail had already accrued on 21 February 2019 and could not be extinguished by the subsequent filing of a charge sheet.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Punjab)

The respondent, represented by advocate Jaspreet Gogia, countered:

  • Since the investigation was conducted by the Punjab Police and not the NIA, the Magistrate had jurisdiction to extend the time.
  • The charge sheet was filed before the petitioner’s second bail application on 8 April 2019, making default bail inapplicable.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment

The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by R.F. Nariman, ruled in favor of the petitioner:

  • Exclusive Jurisdiction of Special Courts: The Court held that only the Special Court designated under the NIA Act has the authority to extend the investigation period to 180 days under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA.
  • Invalid Order by the Magistrate: Since the Magistrate had no jurisdiction, the extension of time was null and void.
  • Indefeasible Right to Default Bail: The accused’s right to default bail accrues once the statutory period expires and an application is made. This right cannot be defeated by the subsequent filing of a charge sheet.
  • Fundamental Right under Article 21: The Court emphasized that default bail is not a mere statutory right but a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed the release of Bikramjit Singh on default bail.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case reinforces the protection of personal liberty and prevents investigative agencies from arbitrarily extending detention periods. It establishes that Special Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over UAPA matters and that procedural violations cannot deprive an accused of their legal rights. The decision is a significant reaffirmation of due process and the rule of law.


Petitioner Name: Bikramjit Singh.
Respondent Name: State of Punjab.
Judgment By: Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice Navin Sinha, Justice K.M. Joseph.
Place Of Incident: Amritsar, Punjab.
Judgment Date: 12-10-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Bikramjit Singh vs State of Punjab Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 12-10-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Terrorist Activities
See all petitions in Judgment by Rohinton Fali Nariman
See all petitions in Judgment by Navin Sinha
See all petitions in Judgment by K.M. Joseph
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts