Right to Default Bail is a Fundamental Right; Cannot be Denied Due to Procedural Lapses:  Uttarakhand High Court

In a landmark decision, the Uttarakhand High Court ruled in favor of two accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), granting them default bail after the trial court extended their detention beyond 90 days without following mandatory procedural safeguards. The court held that the extension was granted in violation of Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA, as the accused were neither notified nor heard before the extension was allowed.

"The right to default bail is not merely a statutory right but a fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Any curtailment of personal liberty must strictly adhere to procedural safeguards," observed the Division Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Pankaj Purohit while setting aside the trial court’s orders.

The case, Javed Siddiqui & Another v. State of Uttarakhand & Another, revolved around the rejection of default bail and the prosecution’s failure to demonstrate due diligence in completing the investigation within the statutory period. The High Court underscored that the denial of bail on the basis of an invalid extension of detention is unconstitutional.

The case stemmed from an FIR registered at Police Station Banbhoolpura, District Nainital, on February 8, 2024, following a violent protest over the demolition of allegedly unauthorized structures, including a Madarsa and a Mosque. The protest escalated into stone-pelting, arson, and an attack on law enforcement officials, leading to the arrest of several individuals, including the appellants.

The charges against them were serious, including rioting, attempt to murder, conspiracy, and terrorism-related offences under various laws, including the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, the Arms Act, and the UAPA.

The accused remained in custody for 90 days, after which the prosecution sought an extension of their detention under Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA, arguing that the investigation was incomplete. The trial court granted the extension without issuing notice to the accused, a decision that later led to the rejection of their default bail plea.

Court’s Observations: Procedural Violations Render Extension of Detention Invalid

The High Court found multiple violations of procedural safeguards in the trial court’s handling of the case, particularly regarding the denial of default bail and the extension of detention without hearing the accused.

"The proviso to Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA is an exception, not a rule. It can only be invoked if the prosecution demonstrates specific reasons for the necessity of further detention. In the present case, no such reasons were recorded, making the extension order legally unsustainable," the court observed.

The court emphasized that an accused must be present and given a meaningful opportunity to object when an application for an extension of detention is considered. Citing Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat (2023) 6 SCC 484, the High Court reiterated that the failure to ensure the presence of the accused at the time of considering the extension application vitiates the entire process.

"The accused were not put to notice of the prosecution's application for an extension. Their right to be heard was completely disregarded. Such a blatant procedural lapse renders the subsequent detention unlawful," the court stated.

The High Court also took strong exception to the lack of promptitude in the investigation, noting that the prosecution had failed to show due diligence in completing its probe within the stipulated timeframe.

"In three months, only eight official witnesses and four public witnesses were examined. The first month saw only three witness statements recorded, and forensic reports were sought after an inexplicable delay of 45 days. This sluggish approach cannot justify continued incarceration," the court observed.

The court further noted that key investigative actions, including forensic analysis and identification of suspects, were undertaken only after the 90-day period had lapsed, indicating a deliberate delay aimed at prolonging detention.

"The failure of the prosecution to act with due diligence cannot be used as a justification to extend an accused’s detention. The law does not permit the State to compensate for its own investigative shortcomings by violating fundamental rights," the bench remarked.

The court found that the trial court had failed to apply judicial mind while granting an extension of detention, as it did not record specific reasons demonstrating why further detention was necessary.

"Merely citing ‘pending investigation’ as a reason for extending detention is not sufficient. Courts must be satisfied that there are concrete grounds necessitating further incarceration," the bench stated, referring to Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602.

The High Court clarified that judicial scrutiny of the prosecution’s request for an extension is not a mere formality but a substantive requirement under UAPA. The absence of recorded reasons for extending the detention beyond 90 days renders the extension order illegal.

Default Bail as a Fundamental Right Under Article 21

The High Court strongly reaffirmed that the right to default bail is an integral part of Article 21 and cannot be arbitrarily denied.

Citing Sanjay Dutt v. State (1994) 5 SCC 410, the bench held that "the accused's right to default bail is not merely a procedural safeguard but a constitutional guarantee under Article 21, ensuring that personal liberty is not curtailed arbitrarily."

The court also relied on M. Ravindran v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2021) 2 SCC 485, where the Supreme Court held that Section 167(2) CrPC must be interpreted in a manner that upholds the constitutional commitment against unlawful detention.

"The prosecution cannot circumvent an accused’s right to default bail through procedural shortcuts. When the statutory period expires, bail becomes an absolute right," the court reiterated.

Holding that the trial court’s orders extending the investigation period and rejecting default bail were legally unsustainable, the Uttarakhand High Court set aside all three impugned orders dated May 10, June 6, and July 1, 2024.

"The continued incarceration of the accused is unjustified. The orders extending their detention beyond 90 days are quashed. The appellants are entitled to default bail as a matter of right," the bench ruled.

The court directed the release of the accused upon execution of personal bonds and furnishing two reliable sureties each, reaffirming that procedural safeguards under UAPA must be strictly adhered to.

This judgment is a significant reaffirmation of the fundamental right to personal liberty, reinforcing that procedural lapses cannot be used to justify prolonged incarceration under anti-terror laws like UAPA. The Uttarakhand High Court’s ruling ensures that prosecuting agencies and trial courts adhere strictly to legal safeguards when dealing with extensions of detention, preventing any arbitrary curtailment of individual freedom.

"The denial of default bail due to procedural lapses is not just an error but a violation of fundamental rights. The judiciary must remain vigilant to prevent the misuse of stringent laws," the court warned in its concluding remarks.

Date of Decision: 08/01/2025