The right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in a case involving the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The key points of the judgment are as follows:

1. Common Order Impugned: The appeals challenge a common order dated 28th June 2022, rejecting applications for default bail filed under Section 167(2) of the CrPC by the appellants in two separate appeals.

2. Previous Bail Grants: One of the appellants, Mahesh Raut, was granted bail during the pendency of the appeals, while another appellant, Dr. Shoma Sen, was granted bail by the Supreme Court.

3. Arguments and Record: The judgment details the legal arguments presented by the advocates representing the appellants and the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The court examined the records, including various affidavits and rejoinders.

4. Factual Background: The case arose from an FIR registered on 8th January 2018, leading to the arrest of the appellants and additional accused under various sections of the IPC and UAPA. The case's complexity increased as multiple applications for extension of time to file charge sheets were filed and subsequently challenged.

5. Legal Dispute: The primary legal dispute centered on whether the application for extending the time to file a charge sheet, made under Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA, met the necessary legal requirements. The appellants argued that the public prosecutor's application did not comply with the mandate of Section 43D of the UAPA, which, they claimed, should have granted them an indefeasible right to default bail after the lapse of 90 days without filing a charge sheet.

6. Supreme Court Intervention: The Supreme Court's intervention in 2019 clarified that the public prosecutor had applied his mind in seeking the extension, and therefore, the appellants were not entitled to default bail.

7. Subsequent Developments: The judgment outlines the series of applications and legal maneuvers by the appellants and co-accused, including the filing of default bail applications, review applications, and challenges to previous court orders.

8. Court's Decision: Ultimately, the court upheld the rejection of the default bail applications, noting that the issues raised had already been addressed in previous judgments and that the appellants could not repeatedly raise the same grounds. The court emphasized that failing to avail the right to default bail before the filing of the charge sheet extinguished that right.