HYDERABAD: The Court grants default bail to the accused if the case investigation is not completed within the period of 90 days, where the probe relates to an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment or a term of not less than 10 years. If the Court is satisfied with the report of the public prosecutor, indicating the progress of the probe and the specific reasons for detention of the accused beyond the said period of 90 days, it may extend the said period up to 180 days.
Necessary ingredients of the proviso to Section 43-D (2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has to be fulfilled for its proper application. The ingredients included - a) it has not been possible to complete the investigation within the period of 90 days, b) a report to be submitted by the public prosecutor, c) said report indicating the progress of investigation and the specific reasons for detention of the accused beyond the period of 90 days and d) satisfaction of the court in respect of the report of public prosecutor.
In an appeal before the Supreme Court, the Central government challenged the order of the Madras High Court granting bail in default to the accused after setting aside order of the special court under National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008, holding that the remand of the accused by the special court for a further period of 90 days was not in compliance to the mandate of Section 43-D (2)(b) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Breach of conditions
As for the case, during the course of investigation the NIA arrested the accused in connection with a murder case. The special public prosecutor submitted a report before the special court, assigning specific reasons for seeking extension of judicial detention of the accused for a further period of 90 days enabling him to complete the investigation.
A counter-statement was filed by the counsel for the accused opposing plea of the special PP.
After hearing the both sides, the special court recorded its satisfaction for detention of the accused for a further period of 90 days.
Aggrieved with the same, the accused moved the high court and the latter arrived at the conclusion that the specific reasons which have been assigned by the special PP does not meet the requirement of law as contemplated under Section 43-D (2)(b) of the Act and accordingly set aside the order of the special court, and granted statutory bail in default to the accused.The Centre then moved the Supreme Court.
After hearing the case and perusing the material on record, the Apex Court found that the accused, after being enlarged on bail in compliance of the order impugned, has committed any breach or violated the conditions of grant of bail.
“To conclude, we are not in agreement with the conclusions arrived at by the High Court in the impugned order, but taking note of the later developments and the supporting facts brought to our notice, we are not inclined to interfere with the final relief to the extent of granting default bail to the accused in the circumstances of the case on hand”, the Supreme Court noted.While disposing of the appeal, the Apex Court granted liberty to the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail, if any exigency arises in future.