Rajasthan High Court Grants Default Bail to Mohd. Sohail Bishti, Quashes Illegal Detention Order

Extension of detention beyond 90 days by Chief Judicial Magistrate under UAPA declared void; Accused's fundamental right to default bail upheld

In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has granted default bail to Mohd. Sohail Bishti, quashing the illegal extension of his detention beyond 90 days under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The judgment, delivered by Justice Sudesh Bansal of the Jaipur Bench, highlights the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and protecting the fundamental rights of the accused.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Bishti, challenging the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, which had extended his judicial custody from 90 to 180 days. Bishti had been detained following an FIR registered on 17 September 2023, under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 of UAPA, for alleged anti-religious activities on social media.

Justice Bansal emphasized that only a Special Court or Sessions Court is empowered to extend detention periods under UAPA, as per Section 43D(2) of the Act. The extension ordered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was deemed illegal and beyond jurisdiction, as no report was submitted by the Public Prosecutor citing specific reasons for the extension.

The judgment reaffirmed the accused's indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which is now Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. Justice Bansal highlighted that this right is intertwined with the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, which reinforce the entitlement to default bail if the investigation is not completed within the statutory period of 90 days. The filing of a charge sheet after the period does not negate this right if it has been availed before submission.

The Rajasthan High Court's ruling sets aside the orders dated 14 December 2023 and 20 December 2023, denying default bail to Bishti, as well as the revision order dated 8 February 2024 by the Additional Sessions Judge. Justice Bansal directed the trial court to release Bishti on default bail with suitable conditions to ensure his presence during the trial.

This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding constitutional rights and ensuring adherence to legal procedures. It serves as a reminder that statutory provisions must be respected, and any deviation could lead to the violation of fundamental rights.

Bottom Line:

The Chief Judicial Magistrate does not have jurisdiction to extend the detention period beyond 90 days under UAPA; only Special Courts or Sessions Courts can authorize such extensions. Accused has an indefeasible right to default bail if the investigation is not completed within the statutory period of 90 days.

Statutory provision(s): Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 13, 43D(2); National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Sections 2(h), 22; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 167(2) (now Section 187 of BNSS); Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21

Mohd. Sohail Bishti v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2806620