Introduction:
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the rejection of default bail to three accused persons prosecuted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), holding that an investigation does not become incomplete merely because the investigating agency continues to examine the accused persons’ possible links with slain or absconding terrorists. The Court clarified that where the investigation into the specific offences allegedly committed by the accused has been completed on the basis of the material collected, the possibility of further investigation into related terrorist connections does not, by itself, establish a right to default bail.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Yash Paul Bourney dismissed an appeal filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, challenging an order passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, acting as the Special Court under the NIA Act. The Special Court had rejected the appellants’ application for default bail in a case registered under several provisions of the UAPA, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Explosive Substances Act and the Arms Act.
In the judgment authored by Justice Yash Paul Bourney, the High Court found that the investigating agency had filed a chargesheet containing material relating to the appellants’ alleged involvement in the offences under investigation. The fact that the agency had reserved the possibility of filing a supplementary chargesheet concerning their suspected links with other terrorists did not mean that the investigation into the existing accusations remained incomplete.
The case arose from an FIR registered on March 28, 2025, under Sections 13, 16, 18, 23, 38 and 39 of the UAPA, along with relevant provisions of the BNS, the Explosive Substances Act and the Arms Act. The three appellants, identified in the case as Raiz, aged 24, Younis, aged 21, and Meema, aged 60, were arrested on April 28, 2025. The investigating agency filed the chargesheet on October 25, 2025.
The appellants subsequently sought default bail, arguing that the investigation had not been completed within the legally prescribed period. Their application relied substantially on a statement in the chargesheet indicating that certain aspects of the investigation were continuing. These included efforts to establish their alleged links with slain or absconding terrorists and to investigate their possible involvement in earlier terror-related incidents in Kathua.
According to the appellants, the continuing investigation demonstrated that the chargesheet had been filed prematurely. They contended that the investigating agency could not defeat their statutory right to default bail by submitting a chargesheet while material aspects of the case remained under investigation.
The Special Court rejected this contention. It relied, among other things, on paragraph 18.4 of the chargesheet, which recorded that offences under Sections 13 and 19 of the UAPA stood established against the appellants. The Special Court considered the investigation into the offences attributed to them sufficiently complete, notwithstanding the possibility of further investigation into their alleged connections with terrorist organisations or individuals operating across the border.
The appellants challenged that decision before the High Court. Their appeal raised an important question concerning the scope of default bail under criminal procedure: whether a chargesheet must be treated as incomplete whenever the investigating agency expressly states that further investigation is continuing, or whether the court must examine the nature and extent of the investigation completed in relation to the offences alleged against the accused.
The legal issue required the Bench to consider the right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as well as the Supreme Court’s decision in Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India and its subsequent clarification in Directorate of Enforcement v. Manpreet Singh Talwar. The Court had to balance the accused persons’ statutory and constitutional protections against the legal position that investigation may continue even after a chargesheet has been filed.
After examining the chargesheet, the supporting material, witness statements and the Special Court’s reasoning, the High Court concluded that the investigation into the appellants’ alleged commission of the offences had been completed on the basis of the material collected. It held that the continuing effort to establish additional links with other terrorists did not, without more, render the chargesheet incomplete or create an entitlement to default bail. The Court also found no reason to interfere with the rejection of bail on merits and dismissed the appeal.
Arguments of the Parties:
The appellants challenged the rejection of default bail primarily on the ground that the investigating agency had not completed the investigation within the statutory period. Their argument rested on the distinction between filing a chargesheet and completing the investigation in the legal sense. According to them, the submission of a police report could not automatically extinguish the right to default bail if the investigating agency itself acknowledged that significant aspects of the case remained unresolved.
The principal basis for their contention was a paragraph in the chargesheet stating that the investigation was continuing into their alleged links with slain or absconding terrorists and their possible involvement in earlier terror-related incidents in Kathua. The appellants relied on this admission to argue that the agency had not reached a final conclusion on the full extent of their alleged involvement in the activities under investigation.
They maintained that the outstanding investigative steps were not necessarily peripheral matters. Establishing connections with terrorist networks and determining possible involvement in other terror-related incidents could, in their submission, form an important part of the broader allegations against them. If the investigating agency was still attempting to establish these connections, the appellants argued, it could not simply rely on the filing of a chargesheet to defeat their statutory entitlement to release.
The appellants also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India (2023). That judgment emphasised that an investigating agency cannot file a chargesheet without completing the investigation merely to deprive an arrested person of the right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. The Supreme Court recognised that this right is connected to the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Drawing on this principle, the appellants contended that the investigation in their case had not reached the stage necessary to justify the denial of default bail. They argued that the investigating agency’s own statement about continuing investigative efforts exposed the incomplete nature of the chargesheet. In their view, the filing of the report on October 25, 2025, should not be treated as sufficient merely because the agency had recorded its conclusions on certain offences.
The appellants further maintained that default bail is a legal entitlement arising from compliance with statutory timelines, rather than a discretionary concession dependent on the gravity of the accusations. Consequently, the seriousness of the UAPA allegations could not, by itself, answer the question whether the investigation had been completed within the period prescribed by law.
Their challenge was directed at the procedural basis for continued detention. The essential question, as framed by their submissions, was whether the chargesheet represented the completion of the investigation into the offences attributed to them or whether it was only a preliminary filing intended to preserve the investigating agency’s ability to keep them in custody while pursuing further inquiries.
The respondents opposed the appeal and defended the Special Court’s decision. Their position, as reflected in the reasoning accepted by the High Court, was that the chargesheet had adequately set out the material collected against the appellants and the offences that the investigation had established. The continued examination of their possible connections with other terrorists did not necessarily mean that the investigation into their alleged commission of the charged offences was unfinished.
The respondents’ position depended on distinguishing between the investigation required to prosecute the appellants for the offences already alleged and additional investigative work concerning possible links, networks or other incidents. A criminal investigation may produce sufficient material to file a chargesheet against particular accused persons while leaving other aspects open for further examination. The mere existence of such additional inquiries does not automatically invalidate the prosecution report already filed.
The Special Court had relied on paragraph 18.4 of the chargesheet, which recorded that offences under Sections 13 and 19 of the UAPA stood established against the appellants. This supported the conclusion that the investigating agency had reached a prosecutable position concerning the offences attributed to them, even though it intended to investigate further whether they had links with slain or absconding terrorists.
The respondents’ case also rested on the material gathered during the investigation, including witness statements, electronic and forensic evidence, and call detail records. The High Court later examined these materials while considering the appeal. The prosecution’s position, as accepted by the Court, was that the allegations against the appellants were not dependent entirely on the unresolved question of their additional terrorist connections.
The respondents also relied on the subsequent clarification issued by the Supreme Court in Directorate of Enforcement v. Manpreet Singh Talwar. The High Court noted that this decision clarified that courts could consider applications for default bail independently of, and without relying upon, the decision in Ritu Chhabaria. The relevant legal principles therefore had to be applied to the facts and material of the case rather than treating any reference to continuing investigation as conclusive proof that a chargesheet was incomplete.
On the question of bail on merits, the prosecution also defended the Special Court’s assessment of the material against the appellants. The High Court considered this aspect separately from the claim of default bail and ultimately found no justification to interfere with the rejection of bail on merits.
The competing submissions thus presented two different approaches to the meaning of an incomplete investigation. The appellants argued that the investigating agency’s express acknowledgment of continuing inquiries demonstrated that the chargesheet had been filed prematurely. The respondents’ position was that the legal inquiry had to focus on whether the investigation into the particular offences attributed to the appellants had been completed, rather than whether every potentially related investigative question had been resolved.
The High Court accepted the latter approach on the facts before it. It did not hold that an investigating agency can always defeat default bail by filing a chargesheet while continuing substantial investigative work. Instead, it examined the chargesheet and supporting record to determine whether the outstanding inquiries prevented the report from being treated as complete in relation to the offences allegedly committed by these appellants.
Court’s Judgment:
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Special Court had correctly rejected the appellants’ claim for default bail. The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Yash Paul Bourney examined the chargesheet and the material collected during the investigation and concluded that the investigating agency had completed its investigation into the appellants’ alleged involvement in the offences for which they were being prosecuted. The continuing inquiry into their possible links with other terrorists did not, by itself, establish that the chargesheet was incomplete.
The Court’s analysis began with the legal foundation of default bail. Under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an accused may become entitled to statutory bail if the investigating agency fails to file the required police report within the applicable period and the accused satisfies the conditions for exercising that right. The provision places a time-bound limit on investigative detention and prevents an accused person from being kept in custody indefinitely merely because the investigation has not been completed.
Default bail is distinct from ordinary bail on merits. An application for regular bail generally requires the court to consider factors such as the nature of the allegations, the material against the accused, the likelihood of the accused fleeing justice and other relevant circumstances. Default bail, by contrast, arises from the investigating agency’s failure to meet the statutory deadline. Its central question is whether the legal conditions for continued detention under the relevant provision have been satisfied.
The significance of this distinction was central to the appellants’ argument. They maintained that the investigating agency had acknowledged that its work remained unfinished and that the chargesheet could not therefore be treated as sufficient to defeat their right to default bail. The High Court recognised the importance of the statutory protection but held that the question could not be resolved simply by looking at whether the chargesheet mentioned any continuing investigation.
The Bench examined the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India (2023), which addressed attempts to defeat the right to default bail by filing a chargesheet without completing the investigation. The Supreme Court had made clear that an investigating agency cannot submit a chargesheet merely as a device to deprive an arrested person of the protection available under Section 167(2) CrPC.
The principle underlying Ritu Chhabaria is that the statutory right cannot be defeated by form alone. Filing a document described as a chargesheet is not necessarily sufficient if the investigation has not genuinely reached the stage required by law. The court must examine the substance of the investigation and determine whether the prosecution report represents a completed investigation into the relevant allegations, rather than a premature filing designed to extend custody.
The High Court also considered the Supreme Court’s subsequent clarification in Directorate of Enforcement v. Manpreet Singh Talwar. It noted that the Supreme Court had clarified that applications for default bail could be considered independently of, and without relying upon, the decision in Ritu Chhabaria. The Bench therefore assessed the appellants’ claim by applying the relevant legal principles to the facts and material available in their case.
The Court did not treat the appellants’ reliance on Ritu Chhabaria as sufficient, by itself, to establish their entitlement to release. Instead, it examined whether the investigation into the offences alleged against them had been completed and whether the continuing inquiries identified in the chargesheet made the existing prosecution report legally incomplete.
In conducting that examination, the Bench considered the chargesheet, the material collected by the investigating agency, the witness statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, and the order passed by the Special Court. The record also included electronic and forensic evidence and call detail records. These materials were relevant to assessing whether the prosecution had collected evidence concerning the appellants’ alleged involvement in the charged offences.
The Court agreed with the Special Court that the investigation into the appellants’ alleged commission of the offences had been completed on the basis of the material gathered. It noted that paragraph 18.4 of the chargesheet recorded that offences under Sections 13 and 19 of the UAPA stood established against them. The Court treated this aspect of the chargesheet, along with the supporting material, as relevant to the conclusion that the prosecution report was complete in relation to the offences attributed to the appellants.
The Bench then addressed the principal argument based on the statement that further investigation was continuing. It observed that the investigating agency was still attempting to establish links between the appellants and slain or absconding terrorists. However, it held that this statement did not necessarily mean that the investigation into the offences for which the appellants had been chargesheeted was incomplete.
The Court observed, “Mere mentioning that investigating agency was still investigating and trying to establish the links between the appellants and the slain/absconding terrorists does not make out a case to project that investigation was incomplete as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants.”
This observation captures the central distinction in the judgment. An investigation may address more than one factual question. The agency may complete the evidentiary work necessary to prosecute an accused for particular offences while continuing to investigate whether that person had additional connections with other individuals, networks or incidents. The existence of the latter inquiry does not automatically render the former investigation incomplete.
The Court’s reasoning was therefore directed towards the relationship between the pending investigative steps and the offences already included in the chargesheet. The relevant issue was not simply whether the investigating agency intended to continue its work. It was whether that continuing work demonstrated that the investigation into the offences allegedly committed by the appellants had not been completed.
On the material before it, the Bench answered that question in the negative. It found that the chargesheet contained the prosecution’s allegations and the material collected in support of them. The further effort to establish the appellants’ alleged connections with slain or absconding terrorists was not, on its own, enough to establish that the chargesheet was a mere preliminary document or that the investigation into the charged offences remained incomplete.
The Court’s conclusion did not mean that an investigating agency is free to file an incomplete chargesheet whenever some evidence has been collected. The principle in Ritu Chhabaria remained relevant to the protection against premature filing intended to defeat statutory bail. Rather, the Court found that the appellants had not established the necessary factual basis for applying that principle in their favour. The pending inquiries, viewed alongside the chargesheet and the material already gathered, did not persuade the Bench that the prosecution report was incomplete in relation to the offences under consideration.
This distinction is important in cases involving allegations under special criminal statutes, including the UAPA. Such investigations may involve multiple suspects, suspected networks, electronic communications, forensic material and possible connections with other incidents. Some investigative questions may remain open even after sufficient material has been collected to prosecute particular accused perons for identified offences. Whether those ou