LawcurbLawcurbTMLegal Intelligence. Simplified.

Md Ariz Hasnain @ Ariz Hasnainv.State of Jharkhand

Citation:
2026 INSC 456
Date:
6 May 2026
Reading time:
15 min read

Legal Analysis: Md. Ariz Hasnain @ Ariz Hasnain vs. State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2026 INSC 456
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta (Judgment authored by Justice Mehta)
Date of Decision: April 30, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Criminal Appeal under Article 136 against High Court order dismissing petition challenging extension of time for filing chargesheet under UAPA.


Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellant was arrested under the UAPA. The 90‑day statutory period for filing chargesheet under Section 167(2) CrPC was to expire on 05.02.2024. On 02.02.2024, the trial court granted an extension of 25 days without issuing notice to the appellant or producing him before the court, and without any reasoned report from the Public Prosecutor. The appellant moved for default bail on 08.02.2024. The trial court rejected it, relying on the extension order. The High Court dismissed his petition, observing that the chargesheet had been filed within the extended period. The Supreme Court held that the extension order was illegal for violating principles of natural justice (no notice/opportunity to the accused) and for lack of application of mind. Consequently, the appellant’s indefeasible right to default bail crystallised on the expiry of 90 days. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was ordered to be released on default bail.


1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Field Details Case Title Md. Ariz Hasnain @ Ariz Hasnain vs. State of Jharkhand Criminal Appeal No. Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 11860 of 2025 Bench Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta Date of Decision April 30, 2026 Citation 2026 INSC 456 Appeal From Order dated 21.02.2025 of Jharkhand High Court in Criminal M.P. No. 742 of 2024


2. Legal Framework

Laws/Provisions:

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 167(2) (default bail; time limit for completing investigation), Section 43‑D(2) of UAPA (special provision for extension)

  • Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: Sections 18, 20, 38, 39

  • Constitution of India, 1950: Article 21 (personal liberty)

Precedents Cited:

  • Jigar v. State of Gujarat (2024) – Requirement of producing accused at the time of considering extension; failure to do so violates Article 21; extension not a mere formality; Public Prosecutor must apply mind and file a report with specific reasons.

  • Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (1994) – Extension requires notice to accused.

  • Sanjay Dutt v. State (1994) – Mandatory to produce accused when extension is considered.


3. Relevant Facts

  • FIR No. 13/2023 (07.11.2023): Registered under IPC Sections 124A, 153A, 120B and UAPA Sections 18, 20, 38, 39.

  • Arrest: Appellant allegedly detained on 04.11.2023 (before FIR), formally shown arrested on 07.11.2023, remanded to judicial custody on 08.11.2023.

  • Statutory period: 90 days under Section 167(2) CrPC was to expire on 05.02.2024.

  • Extension application (02.02.2024): IO moved application for 30 days extension; trial court allowed it on same day, extending time by 25 days. Appellant was not produced, not informed, and no reasoned report from Public Prosecutor.

  • Default bail application (08.02.2024): Appellant moved for default bail after expiry of 90 days.

  • Trial court’s rejection (20.02.2024): Relied on extension order dated 02.02.2024.

  • Further extensions: 28.02.2024 (25 days), 28.03.2024 (30 days), 19.04.2024 (15 days) – all with similar mechanical reasoning.

  • Chargesheet filed on 02.05.2024.

  • High Court: Dismissed the petition challenging the extension, holding that chargesheet having been filed, nothing survived.


4. Issues

  1. Whether the order dated 02.02.2024 extending the period for filing chargesheet was legally valid when the appellant was not produced before the court, not informed of the application, and no reasoned report was submitted by the Public Prosecutor?

  2. Whether the appellant had an indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC upon expiry of 90 days when the extension was granted in violation of natural justice and without application of mind?

  3. Whether the subsequent filing of chargesheet after the expiry of 90 days but within the illegally extended period extinguishes the right to default bail?


5. Ratio Decidendi

A. Mandatory requirements for extension (Paras 26-28, citing Jigar):
The court must produce the accused (physically or via video link) at the time of considering an application for extension, and the accused must be informed that such application is being considered. The accused has a right to raise objections, though the scope may be limited (e.g., pointing out that the application was not made by the Public Prosecutor or that the statutory report lacks reasons). Failure to do so is not a mere procedural irregularity but a gross illegality violating Article 21.

B. Public Prosecutor’s report must contain specific reasons (Para 34):
The extension is not an empty formality. The Public Prosecutor must apply his mind and submit a report setting out the progress of investigation and specific reasons for continuing detention beyond 90 days. The court must apply its mind to the contents of the report.

C. Mechanical extension – illegal (Paras 27-28, 31-34):
The order dated 02.02.2024 merely recorded the submission of the APP that “investigation was pending” without any reasons. The subsequent extension orders were verbatim copies, disclosing no application of mind. Hence, the extension orders were illegal and arbitrary.

D. Default bail right crystallises on expiry of statutory period (Para 36):
Since the first extension was illegal, the statutory period of 90 days expired on 05.02.2024 without a valid extension. The appellant moved for default bail on 08.02.2024, before the chargesheet was filed. His right to default bail had crystallised. The subsequent filing of chargesheet on 02.05.2024 (within the illegally extended period) cannot defeat that right.

E. High Court’s reasoning rejected (Para 37):
The High Court’s observation that the petition had lost efficacy because the chargesheet was filed is incorrect. The right to default bail, once accrued, is not extinguished by subsequent filing of chargesheet unless the accused had not yet applied for bail before such filing.


6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

  • Production of accused and notice are mandatory before granting extension under Section 167(2) CrPC (including UAPA). Failure renders the extension void.

  • The Public Prosecutor’s report for extension must contain specific reasons for continued detention, not just a statement that investigation is pending.

  • The court’s order granting extension must reflect application of mind to the progress of investigation and the necessity for further detention.

  • A mechanical order (e.g., verbatim repetition of reasons) is illegal and entitles the accused to default bail.

  • The accused’s right to default bail crystallises on expiry of the statutory period if no valid extension is in place, and subsequent filing of chargesheet does not defeat that right if the application for bail was made before the chargesheet.


7. Court’s Analysis and Examination of Concepts

  • The Court examined the order sheets and found that the appellant was not produced and no notice was given on 02.02.2024. This directly violated the mandate in Jigar.

  • The order itself did not mention any reasons; it merely recorded “submission of learned APP that investigation is pending.” There was no report from the Public Prosecutor as required under Section 43‑D(2) UAPA.

  • The subsequent extension orders (28.02.2024, 28.03.2024, 19.04.2024) repeated the same mechanical reasoning, indicating a complete lack of judicial application of mind.

  • The appellant had already applied for default bail on 08.02.2024, within the period before the chargesheet was filed. The right to default bail under Section 167(2) is an indefeasible right once it accrues.

  • The High Court erred by dismissing the petition solely on the ground that chargesheet had been filed, ignoring the illegality of the extension order and the crystallised right to default bail.


8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment strongly reinforces procedural safeguards for personal liberty under Article 21. It makes it clear that extensions under UAPA (or other special laws) are not automatic and cannot be granted behind the back of the accused. The requirement of a reasoned Public Prosecutor report and judicial application of mind prevents arbitrary detention. The ruling that default bail right survives if applied for before chargesheet is consistent with settled law.

Potential concerns: None significant. The judgment is in line with Jigar and earlier precedents. It balances national security concerns (UAPA) with fundamental rights.

Practical impact: This judgment will be heavily relied upon by accused persons in UAPA and other stringent laws to challenge mechanical extension orders. It mandates that trial courts must produce the accused and record reasons for extension. Public Prosecutors must now file detailed reports justifying continued detention beyond 90 days. Failure to do so will result in default bail.


9. Final Outcome

  • Criminal Appeal allowed.

  • Impugned order of the High Court dated 21.02.2025 set aside.

  • Order dated 20.02.2024 of the trial court rejecting default bail also set aside.

  • The extensions granted are held illegal.

  • The appellant shall be released on default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

  • The trial court may impose suitable conditions to secure his presence during trial.

  • No order as to costs.

  • Pending applications disposed of.


10. Practical Application (Use in Court)

For accused persons: If you are in judicial custody and the prosecution seeks extension of time to file chargesheet, insist on being produced physically or through video link when the extension application is heard. If extension is granted without your presence or without a reasoned report, challenge it immediately. If the statutory period expires without a valid extension, file a default bail application. Cite Jigar and this judgment.

For Public Prosecutors: When seeking extension under Section 167(2) CrPC (including under UAPA), file a detailed report setting out the progress of investigation, why further time is needed, and specific reasons for continuing detention. Do not merely state “investigation is pending.” Ensure that the accused is produced and informed of the application.

For trial courts: When an application for extension is filed, direct the production of the accused (or video link). Ask the Public Prosecutor to read out the report. Record reasons for granting extension, including why the investigation could not be completed within 90 days and why further detention is necessary. Do not pass mechanical orders.

For High Courts: In petitions challenging extension orders or default bail rejections, examine whether the accused was produced and whether the extension order contains reasons. Do not dismiss the petition merely because chargesheet has been filed; the right to default bail may have crystallised before filing.


11.  Court Lines

“The requirement of the law is that while extending the remand to judicial custody, the presence of the accused has to be procured either physically or virtually. This is the mandatory requirement of law. This requirement is sine qua non for the exercise of the power to extend the judicial custody remand.” (Para 41, quoting Jigar)

“If we accept the argument that the failure of the prosecution to produce the accused … is a mere procedural irregularity, it will negate the proviso … and that may amount to violation of rights conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution.” (Para 45, quoting Jigar)

“The orders of extension … reflect that the extensions were granted in a totally mechanical manner without assigning any justifiable reasons. This patent lacuna … renders the continued custody of the appellant beyond the period of 90 days illegal.” (Para 35)

“The appellant had moved the trial Court seeking default bail well before the filing of chargesheet. … the appellant’s right to claim default bail stood crystallised upon the filing of the application under Section 167(2) on 8th February, 2024.” (Para 36)

“The impugned orders are declared to be bad in the eyes of law and are accordingly set aside.” (Para 37)


12. Legal Strategy Insight

For defence counsel: As soon as you suspect that the prosecution will not file chargesheet within 90 days, monitor the court records. If the prosecution moves for extension, insist that your client be produced and that you receive a copy of the Public Prosecutor’s report. If extension is granted without proper notice or reasons, file a default bail application immediately after the statutory period expires. Do not wait for the court to rule on the extension – the right accrues automatically on expiry of 90 days if no valid extension exists.

For prosecution: To avoid default bail, ensure that the extension application is filed before the 90 days expire, with a detailed report, and that the accused is produced and given notice. If the court grants a mechanical extension, the order is vulnerable. Always obtain a reasoned order and ensure the accused’s presence on record.

For trial courts: When an extension application is filed, do not pass orders in chambers. Hold a hearing in the presence of the accused (via video link if necessary). Record the submissions of the Public Prosecutor and the defence (if any). Write a short but reasoned order explaining why the extension is necessary. This will protect the order from being set aside.

For High Courts: When reviewing an extension order, ask: (i) Was the accused produced? (ii) Was there a report from the Public Prosecutor with specific reasons? (iii) Does the court’s order reflect application of mind? If any answer is negative, set aside the extension and grant default bail.

View full judgment (PDF)