Court Dismisses Appeal for Default Bail, Affirms Validity of Investigation Extension to 180 Days
In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the legality of an extension of the investigation period from 90 to 180 days in a case involving alleged offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The court dismissed an appeal filed by Ramesh Mandavi, accused of involvement in extremist activities, challenging the orders of the Special Judge which extended the investigation period and denied default bail.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Shri Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal delivered the judgment on March 2, 2026. The bench found that the statutory conditions for extending the investigation period under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA were satisfied, and that the presence of the accused during the extension proceedings was not mandatory.
Mandavi, a former Sarpanch and political candidate, was arrested on July 16, 2025, under serious charges including those under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act, alongside UAPA allegations. The investigation was initially to be concluded within 90 days, a period that ended on October 14, 2025. However, the Special Judge extended the period to 180 days on October 7, 2025, allowing continued detention based on a report by the Public Prosecutor, which outlined ongoing investigative needs such as the arrest of absconding co-accused and pending sanction from the State Government.
Mandavi's counsel argued that the extension was granted unlawfully without his presence and lacked a valid report from the Public Prosecutor. The appeal underscored that his right to default bail had been infringed upon with the extension being mechanical and against statutory requirements. However, the High Court rejected these claims, noting that the accused was represented by counsel during the proceedings, and that the Public Prosecutor's report satisfactorily met legal standards.
The court emphasized the importance of judicial scrutiny in such extensions, particularly given the serious nature of allegations involving national security. The judges clarified that the right to default bail under Section 187(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, does not automatically arise if an investigation period is validly extended before the expiry of the initial statutory period.
Highlighting the legislative framework, the court remarked that the extension was justified given the complexity of the case and the statutory provisions under UAPA allowing for extended investigations. The judgment reinforces the procedural safeguards and judicial oversight required in cases involving national security.
The appeal was thus dismissed, affirming the Special Judge's orders as compliant with statutory and constitutional mandates. The case underscores the balance between individual rights and investigative necessities in the context of anti-terrorism laws.
Bottom Line:
Extension of investigation period under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA is lawful if statutory conditions are satisfied, and presence of the accused during such extension is not mandatory. Default bail under Section 187(2) BNSS cannot be claimed when investigation period is validly extended before expiry of initial statutory period of 90 days.
Statutory provision(s): Section 43-D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 187(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Ramesh Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh, (Chhattisgarh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2860903
