Md. Ariz Hasnain @ Ariz Hasnain v. State of Jharkhand, 2026
It clarifies that default bail is not a discretionary relief but an indefeasible statutory right once conditions are met.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
9 May 2026
Judges
Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Sandeep Mehta
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
An FIR was registered on 07.11.2023 under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
-
The accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.11.2023.
-
The statutory period of 90 days for filing the charge sheet under Section 167(2) CrPC was nearing completion.
-
Before expiry of 90 days, the investigating agency filed an application on 02.02.2024 seeking an extension of 25 days under Section 43D(2) of UAPA.
-
The Special Judge granted the extension, but:
-
The accused was not produced before the court
-
No opportunity of hearing was given
-
The order was passed in a mechanical manner
-
-
After expiry of the 90-day period, the accused filed an application seeking default bail on 08.02.2024.
-
The charge sheet was eventually filed only on 02.05.2024, after multiple extensions.
-
The Jharkhand High Court rejected the plea for default bail, holding that filing of charge sheet within the extended period defeated the right under Section 167(2) CrPC.
Issues
-
Whether failure to grant an opportunity of hearing to the accused while extending the investigation period under Section 43D(2) UAPA vitiates the extension order?
-
Whether an accused acquires an indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC once the statutory period expires?
-
Whether filing of charge sheet after expiry of 90 days but within extended period (granted without due process) defeats the right to default bail?
-
Whether mechanical extension of time violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
Held
-
The accused acquires an indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC if the charge sheet is not filed within the statutory period.
-
Extension of investigation time under Section 43D(2) UAPA must follow strict procedural safeguards.
-
Failure to grant hearing and absence of judicial application of mind renders extension orders invalid.
-
Violation of procedural safeguards under Article 21 vitiates continued detention.
-
The accused was entitled to be released on default bail.
Analysis
-
The judgment strongly reinforces the constitutional protection of personal liberty under Article 21.
-
It clarifies that default bail is not a discretionary relief but an indefeasible statutory right once conditions are met.
-
The Court emphasizes that special statutes like UAPA cannot dilute procedural safeguards.
-
It strengthens the requirement of judicial application of mind in orders extending investigation timelines.
-
The ruling ensures that prosecuting agencies cannot bypass statutory timelines through mechanical extensions.
-
It affirms that right to be heard is an essential component of fairness, even at the stage of extension of investigation.
-
The decision builds upon earlier precedent such as Jigar v. State of Gujarat, reinforcing strict scrutiny in liberty-curtailing procedures.
-
The judgment serves as a strong safeguard against indefinite pre-trial detention, especially in serious offences.