The State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan @ Moin Mistri & Anr., 2026
The mere statement that sufficient material exists to file a charge sheet does not establish completion of investigation.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
16 September 2026
Judges
Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra & Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
An FIR was registered by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), Mumbai, in connection with allegations against the accused persons.
-
The accused persons were arrested on 22 September 2022.
-
The case involved offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
-
The prosecution sought extension of time for completing the investigation.
-
The initial statutory period was 90 days, followed by an extension of 30 days.
-
Thereafter, the prosecution sought a further extension of 15 days.
-
In its application seeking the second extension, the prosecution stated that sufficient material existed for filing the charge sheet.
-
However, the prosecution also explained that additional time was required to analyse and collate the material already collected, including witness statements, bank records, electronic evidence and other investigative inputs.
-
The Special Court granted the second extension of 15 days by its order dated 18 January 2023.
-
The accused challenged the extension and claimed entitlement to default bail.
-
The Bombay High Court held that the statement regarding the availability of sufficient material for filing the charge sheet indicated that the investigation was complete.
-
On that basis, the High Court interfered with the order of the Special Court and granted default bail to the accused.
-
The State of Maharashtra challenged the decision of the High Court before the Supreme Court.
Issues
-
Whether a statement that sufficient material exists to file a charge sheet can, by itself, establish that the investigation has been completed?
-
Whether the court can determine that the investigation is complete by relying upon an isolated statement contained in an application seeking extension of time?
-
Whether an investigating agency can seek a further extension of the investigation period when material has already been collected but requires further analysis and collation?
-
Whether the Special Court was justified in granting a second extension of 15 days for completing the investigation?
-
Whether the accused became entitled to default bail merely because the prosecution stated that sufficient material existed for filing the charge sheet?
-
Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the extension granted by the Special Court on the ground that the investigation had already been completed?
-
Whether the High Court was justified in considering the requirement of sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA while deciding the validity of the extension of time for completing the investigation?
Judgement
-
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra.
-
The Court set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court granting default bail to the accused.
-
The Court held that the statement that sufficient material existed for filing the charge sheet could not, by itself, be treated as an admission that the investigation was complete.
-
The Court held that the extension application must be read as a whole and not in piecemeal.
-
The prosecution had explained that further time was required to analyse and collate the material already collected during the investigation.
-
The material included witness statements, bank records, electronic evidence and other investigative inputs.
-
The High Court therefore erred in placing undue reliance on a solitary statement contained in the extension application.
-
The Court held that the investigation could not be treated as complete merely because sufficient material existed to prepare a charge sheet.
-
The Court found the second extension granted by the Special Court to be valid.
-
The Supreme Court also held that the High Court's discussion regarding Section 45 of the UAPA was beyond the central issue before it.
-
The Supreme Court consequently cancelled the default bail granted to the accused.
-
The respondents were directed to surrender within the period specified by the Court and were permitted to seek regular bail in accordance with law.
Held
-
The extension application must be considered as a whole.
-
Further analysis and collation of evidence may constitute continuing investigation.
-
A valid extension of the investigation period prevents the accused from claiming default bail merely on the basis of the expiry of the original period.
-
The Special Court was justified in granting the second extension of 15 days.
-
The Bombay High Court erred in treating the prosecution's statement as an admission that the investigation was complete.
-
The default bail granted by the High Court was therefore set aside.
-
The discussion concerning Section 45 UAPA was not relevant to determining whether the second extension of time was valid.
Analysis
-
Completion of investigation: The Court distinguished between having sufficient material to prepare a charge sheet and actual completion of the investigation.
-
Reading the application as a whole: The Court emphasized that a document should not be interpreted by isolating one sentence from the remaining contents.
-
Role of investigating agency: The Court recognized that the investigating agency may require additional time to analyse and collate material already collected during the investigation.
-
Default bail: The entitlement to default bail depends upon the failure to complete the investigation within the legally prescribed period. Therefore, the validity of the extension was central to the accused's claim.
-
UAPA extension: The case demonstrates the importance of the statutory mechanism permitting extension of the investigation period in UAPA matters.
-
Evidence analysis: Witness statements, bank records and electronic evidence may require further analysis even where substantial material has already been collected.
-
Section 45 UAPA: The Supreme Court held that the High Court's discussion concerning sanction for prosecution was not central to the question whether the investigation period had been validly extended.
-
Effect of valid extension: Once the extension granted by the Special Court was found valid, the basis on which default bail had been granted by the High Court no longer survived.