J&K & Ladakh HC: Filing of Charge-Sheet Within 180 Days Extinguishes Right to Default Bail Under UAPA

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a default bail application filed by an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, holding that the filing of a charge-sheet within the statutory period of 180 days extinguishes the indefeasible right to statutory bail. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani delivered the judgment in the petition filed by Syed Ahmad Parimoo, who sought release under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Article 21 of the Constitution.

The case originated from a First Information Report registered on April 17, 2026, following the apprehension of the petitioner and three others by a naka party with live hand grenades. The petitioner was produced before the Special Court on April 18, 2026, and remanded to judicial custody. The prosecution subsequently sought extensions of the investigation period under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA. A first report was submitted on July 6, 2026, leading to a 45-day extension on July 15, against the 90 days sought. A second report filed on August 19 resulted in the Special Court extending the investigation period to the statutory maximum of 180 days on August 24. The charge-sheet was presented before the Special Court on October 12, 2026.

How is the 180-day period for default bail computed under UAPA?

The Court held that the 180-day period must be computed from the date of first remand to judicial custody, which was April 18, 2026. Even if the period allegedly spent in custody before the FIR registration were included, the charge-sheet filed on October 12 fell within the permissible 180-day limit, thereby extinguishing the right to default bail.

The petitioner contended that the maximum period of 180 days under Section 187 of the BNSS, read with Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA, had expired, rendering his continued detention illegal. He had filed the present application on October 6, 2026, six days before the charge-sheet was submitted.

The Bench examined the sequence of remand orders, applications for extension, and the date of presentation of the charge-sheet. The respondents submitted that the statutory period was to be reckoned from April 18, 2026, the date of first remand. On this computation, the charge-sheet filed on October 12 was well within the authorised period.

The Court relied on its Division Bench judgments in Syed Irfan Abdullah v. UT of J&K and Riyaz Ahmad Hajam v. UT of J&K. In Syed Irfan Abdullah, the Bench held that an accused must be afforded an opportunity to oppose a prosecution request for extension of investigation, as such extension impacts the right to default bail. It further ruled that an application for default bail filed before the expiry of the authorised custody period is premature and not maintainable, particularly where the extension is granted and the charge-sheet filed within the extended period.

In Riyaz Ahmad Hajam, the Division Bench held that once a valid charge-sheet is filed within the prescribed or legally extended period, the right to default bail stands extinguished, irrespective of whether cognizance has been taken thereafter. The Bench also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Enforcement Directorate, Government of India v. Kapil Wadhawan & Anr. (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 249), which affirmed that the indefeasible right to default bail accrues the moment the stipulated remand period expires, provided the charge-sheet has not been filed by then.

Applying these precedents, the High Court concluded that since the charge-sheet was filed on October 12, 2026—within 180 days from the first remand on April 18, 2026—the petitioner's right to default bail had been validly extinguished. The Court dismissed the petition.

The decision reinforces the principle that timely filing of a charge-sheet within the UAPA's extended investigation framework deprives the accused of the statutory right to default bail, provided the extensions were granted in accordance with law.