Supreme Court Rules Extension of Chargesheet Time Without Hearing Accused is Illegal — Grants Default Bail Under UAPA 2026 INSC 456
EduLaw EditorialLandmark JudgementsTitle: Default Bail Under UAPA Cannot Be Defeated by Mechanical, Ex Parte Extension of Investigation Time — Supreme Court Reaffirms Constitutional Safeguards for Personal Liberty Case Name: Md. Ariz Hasnain @ Ariz Hasnain v. State of Jharkhand Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11860 of 2025) Court: Supreme Court of India Judges: Hon'ble Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Justice Sandeep Mehta Judgment Date: 30 April 2026 Citation: 2026 INSC 456 ABSTRACT The Supreme Court of India, in Md. Ariz Hasnain v. State of Jharkhand (2026 INSC 456), delivered a significant judgment on the interplay between statutory investigation timelines under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and the indefeasible right of the accused to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 . The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside orders passed by the Special Judge and the Jharkhand High Court, holding that extending the period for filing of chargesheet without producing the accused before the Court, without affording an opportunity of hearing, and without recording justifiable reasons constitutes a "gross illegality" violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India . The Court granted default bail to the appellant who had been booked under Sections 18, 20, 38, and 39 of the UAPA along with Sections 124A, 153A, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. This judgment reinforces the constitutional mandate that personal liberty cannot be taken away through procedural shortcuts and that the right to default bail, once crystallized, remains indefeasible and cannot be defeated by a subsequently filed chargesheet. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Factual Background Procedural History and Chronology of Events Issues Raised Before the Supreme Court Submissions on Behalf of the Appellant Submissions on Behalf of the State Supreme Court's Analysis: The Mandate of Hearing the Accused Absence of Judicial Application of Mind in Extension Orders The Indefeasible Right to Default Bail — Constitutional Foundation and Conclusion 1. INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND The intersection of national security legislation and fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution has always been a contested terrain in Indian criminal jurisprudence. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 authorizes extended periods of investigation — up to 180 days — compared to the standard 60 or 90 days under Section 167(2) of the CrPC . However, such extension is not automatic. It requires a report from the Public Prosecutor indicating progress of investigation and specific reasons justifying continued detention, followed by a judicial order granting extension. The present case squarely raised the question of what happens when these procedural safeguards are flouted — when extension orders are passed behind the back of the accused, without judicial scrutiny, and without any semblance of reasoned decision-making. The appellant, Md. Ariz Hasnain, was arraigned as an accused in FIR No. 13 of 2023 dated 7 November 2023, registered at Police Station ATS, Ranchi. The charges levelled against him included offences punishable under Sections 124A, 153A, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 18, 20, 38, and 39 of the UAPA . According to the appellant, he was illegally detained on 4 November 2023, three days before the FIR was even registered. He was formally shown as arrested on 7 November 2023, the same day the FIR was lodged, and was remanded to judicial custody on 8 November 2023. The period of 90 days prescribed under Section 167(2) CrPC read with the proviso inserted by Section 43D(2) of the UAPA was set to expire on 5 February 2024. 2. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS The procedural chronology of this case reveals a disturbing pattern of executive overreach facilitated by judicial abdication. On 2 February 2024, merely three days before the 90-day statutory period was to expire, the Investigating Officer moved an application before the Special Judge (AJC XVIII cum Special Judge, ATS, Ranchi) seeking an extension of 30 days to complete the investigation. The application was forwarded by the Additional Public Prosecutor. On the very same day, the Special Judge granted the extension for 25 days beyond the 90-day period. This order was passed without producing the appellant before the Court, without informing him that such proceedings were underway, and without affording him any opportunity to contest the prayer for extension. The appellant, languishing in judicial custody, remained entirely unaware that his right to default bail was being extinguished behind his back. On 5 February 2024, when the 90-day period expired without a chargesheet being filed, the appellant was produced before the Special Judge via video conferencing, and his judicial custody was routinely extended for 14 days. Still unaware of the extension order dated