.jpeg){kind=small}
Case Snapshot
Case Name: The State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan @ Moin Mistri & Anr.
Citation: 2026 INSC 1021
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
Date of Judgment: September 21, 2026
Area of Law: Criminal Law, UAPA, Default Bail, Extension of Investigation
The Judgment in One Line
Supreme Court sets aside default bail, holding that the second extension under Section 43D UAPA was valid because investigation was still incomplete and sanction is not required for filing a charge sheet.
Why this Judgement Matters
This judgment clarifies the scope of extension of time for investigation under Section 43D of the UAPA and the stage at which sanction under Section 45 is required. It holds that pending sanction is not a valid ground for extension, but if investigation remains incomplete for other valid reasons, extension is permissible. The ruling prevents courts from prematurely declaring investigation complete based on stray statements. It also reinforces that investigation is the exclusive domain of the police, and courts cannot curtail it except in exceptional cases. A significant judgment on default bail and UAPA procedure.
Background
An FIR was registered on 21.09.2022 against the respondents and others under IPC Sections 120B, 121A, 153A and UAPA Section 13(1)(b). The respondents were arrested on 22.09.2022. The 90-day period for filing the charge sheet expired on 20.12.2022. The Special Judge granted a 30-day extension on 17.12.2022. A second extension of 15 days was sought on 12.01.2023 and allowed on 18.01.2023. The respondents filed a default bail application on 20.01.2023, which was dismissed as premature. The charge sheet was filed on 02.02.2023. The High Court held the second extension illegal on the ground that sanction under Section 45 UAPA was pending and default bail had accrued. The State appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Court
Whether the second extension of time under Section 43D UAPA was valid.
Whether the investigation was complete when the extension was sought.
Whether pending sanction under Section 45 UAPA is a valid ground for extension of time to file charge sheet.
Whether the respondents were entitled to default bail.
Whether the High Court could curtail the police’s power to investigate.
What Did the Supreme Court Hold?
High Court Erred in Holding Investigation Complete
The prosecution’s statement that “there is enough evidence to file a charge sheet” does not mean investigation is complete.
The statement cannot be read in isolation to curtail further investigation.
The second extension application cited valid grounds: voice sample verification, bank account verification, data analysis, new offences, and collection of further evidence.
Sanction Not Required for Filing Charge Sheet
Section 45 UAPA requires sanction only for taking cognizance, not for filing a charge sheet.
A charge sheet can be filed without sanction.
The embargo is on cognizance, not on filing the final report.
However, pending sanction is not a valid ground for extension of time.
Extension Valid Because Investigation Incomplete
The extension was not granted solely for sanction.
The Special Judge’s order dated 17.12.2022, read as a whole, granted extension for retrieving electronic evidence and also noted sanction as a ground.
The second extension was for analysing data, FSL report, bank statements, and other evidence.
Under Section 43D, extension can be granted if investigation is not complete.
Investigation Is Exclusive Domain of Police
Courts cannot decide when investigation should stop.
The police have statutory right to investigate; courts cannot curtail it except in exceptional cases.
Investigation ends with filing of charge sheet under Section 173(2) CrPC; cognizance is separate.
No Default Bail
The charge sheet was filed on 02.02.2023, within the extended period.
The second extension was legal and valid.
The default bail application was premature and rightly dismissed.
Key Legal Principles
Default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC read with Section 43D UAPA accrues only if charge sheet is not filed within the statutory or validly extended period.
Section 43D UAPA permits extension of time beyond 90 days up to 180 days if investigation is not complete.
Pending sanction under Section 45 UAPA is not a valid ground for extension of time to file charge sheet.
Sanction under Section 45 UAPA is required for taking cognizance, not for filing charge sheet.
Investigation is the exclusive domain of the police; courts cannot curtail it except in exceptional cases.
A stray statement in an application cannot be read in isolation to conclude investigation is complete.
Orders must be read as a whole and in context, not in piecemeal.
Charge sheet is the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC; investigation ends with its filing.
Important Precedents
Judgebir Singh v. National Investigation Agency – Charge sheet filed without sanction is not incomplete; no default bail accrues if investigation concluded within time.
Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra – Investigation ends with filing of charge sheet; cognizance is separate; default bail not attracted if charge sheet filed within time.
Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely v. State of NCT of Delhi – Extension can be granted for pending FSL report and sanctions if investigation is not complete.
Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab – Default bail is an indefeasible right under Article 21 if charge sheet not filed within time.
Sanjay Dutt v. State – Default bail right is enforceable only before filing of charge sheet; it extinguishes thereafter.
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra – Extension of time under special statutes requires valid grounds; default bail accrues on failure.
Practical Impact
For Advocates: This judgment clarifies that extension under Section 43D UAPA can be sought if investigation is genuinely incomplete, not merely for sanction. Default bail applications should be filed only after verifying whether extension was valid.
For Future Litigation: The ruling will be cited to oppose default bail where investigation is ongoing and extension has been validly granted. It also clarifies that sanction is not required for filing charge sheet.
For Investigating Agencies: They must demonstrate that investigation is incomplete and cite specific grounds for extension. Stray statements will not be treated as proof of completion.
Lawcurb Quick Insight
The Court noted that a solitary statement “there is enough evidence to file charge sheet” cannot be stretched to mean investigation is complete. The application must be read as a whole, and the grounds for extension were valid.
Lawcurb Practice Note
Advocates should: (i) verify whether extension under Section 43D was granted on valid grounds; (ii) not rely solely on pending sanction as a ground; (iii) argue default bail only if charge sheet not filed within valid extended period; and (iv) remember sanction is for cognizance, not filing.
Remember this Ratio
Pending sanction under Section 45 UAPA is not a ground to extend time to file charge sheet; extension is valid only if investigation is incomplete.
Final Outcome
Criminal Appeal allowed.
Impugned High Court judgment dated 15.07.2024 set aside.
Special Judge’s order dated 18.01.2023 granting second extension held legal and valid.
Default bail application dated 20.01.2023 (Exhibit 44) dismissed.
Respondent No. 1 to surrender within 30 days; may pray for regular bail if advised.
Pending applications disposed of.
Lawcurb Verdict
This judgment is a significant clarification on default bail and UAPA procedure. By upholding the extension granted for ongoing investigation, the Court prevents premature default bail based on isolated statements. The ruling also clarifies that sanction is for cognizance, not filing charge sheet. It reinforces the exclusive domain of police investigation and the limited scope of judicial interference. A well-reasoned judgment that balances personal liberty with the needs of terrorism-related investigations.
Exam Lens
Question 1: When can time be extended under Section 43D UAPA for filing charge sheet? Is pending sanction a valid ground?
Answer: Time can be extended under Section 43D UAPA only if investigation is not complete. The prosecution must show progress and specific reasons for detention beyond 90 days. Pending sanction under Section 45 UAPA is not a valid ground because sanction is required for taking cognizance, not for filing charge sheet. In this case, the extension was valid because investigation was incomplete—voice samples, bank statements, and electronic data were still being analysed.
Question 2: What is the distinction between filing a charge sheet and taking cognizance under UAPA?
Answer: Filing a charge sheet is the final report of investigation under Section 173(2) CrPC. Taking cognizance is the court’s act of applying its mind to the offence. Under Section 45 UAPA, sanction is required for taking cognizance, not for filing charge sheet. A charge sheet can be filed without sanction; the court may wait for sanction before taking cognizance. Default bail does not accrue if charge sheet is filed within time, even if sanction is pending.
Question 3: Can courts curtail police investigation? What is the scope of judicial interference?
Answer: Investigation is the exclusive domain of the police. Courts cannot decide when investigation should stop. They can interfere only in exceptional cases, such as when there is a statutory bar or mala fides. The police have a statutory right to investigate; courts cannot curtail it merely because a statement suggests enough evidence exists. The investigation ends with filing of charge sheet; further investigation can be carried out under Section 173(8) CrPC.
This report is prepared by Lawcurb for educational and informational purposes only. It is a concise summary of the judgment and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to refer to the original judgment before relying on any legal proposition.