Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard criminal appeals arising from Special Leave Petitions filed by accused persons charged under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015. The appellants were arrested in October 2020 following an FIR registered for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the 2015 Act. The Special Court, established under the Act, extended the investigation period from 90 to 180 days based on reports submitted by the Public Prosecutor in January 2021, granting extensions on the same day the applications were filed. The appellants challenged these orders before the Gujarat High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but their applications were rejected by a common judgment dated September 15, 2021. The core legal issue was whether the extension orders were legal given that the accused were not produced before the Special Court, either physically or via video conference, and were not informed about the Public Prosecutor's reports, as required by precedent. The appellants argued that this violated the mandate laid down by the Constitution Bench in Sanjay Dutt v. State, which requires production and notice to the accused when considering such reports, and that they were entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC as their bail applications were filed after the expiry of 90 days but before the charge sheet was submitted in April 2021. They contended that the right to default bail is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The respondent, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, argued that the accused had no right to be heard at the investigation stage and that written notice was not required. The Court analyzed the provisions of Section 20(2) of the 2015 Act, which amends Section 167(2) CrPC, and found it pari materia with similar provisions in the TADA Act and POTA. Relying on Sanjay Dutt and other precedents like Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Bikramjit Singh, the Court held that production of the accused and informing them about the report is mandatory, and failure to do so renders the extension orders illegal. It affirmed that the right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is a fundamental right integral to Article 21. Consequently, the Court set aside the extension orders and the High Court's judgment, granting default bail to the appellants as their bail applications were timely filed before the charge sheet.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Default Bail - Mandatory Production of Accused - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 167(2) and Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015, Section 20(2) - The appellants were arrested under the 2015 Act and the Special Court extended investigation period to 180 days based on Public Prosecutor reports without their presence or notice - The Supreme Court held that production of accused before the Special Court when considering such reports is mandatory under the Constitution Bench decision in Sanjay Dutt, and failure to do so renders the extension orders illegal - Consequently, the appellants were entitled to default bail as their applications were filed after 90 days but before charge sheet (Paras 4-7). B) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Right to Default Bail - Constitution of India, Article 21 and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 167(2) - The appellants claimed default bail as a fundamental right under Article 21 against arbitrary detention - The Court affirmed that the right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is not merely statutory but a fundamental right integral to Article 21, requiring strict interpretation to protect personal liberty - This principle was applied to quash the illegal extension orders and grant bail (Paras 6, 10). C) Criminal Law - Special Statutes - Procedural Compliance - Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015, Section 20(2) - The Special Court extended investigation period under the 2015 Act without following mandatory procedural safeguards established in precedents - The Court held that the proviso added by Section 20(2) of the 2015 Act is pari materia with similar provisions in TADA Act and POTA, making the Sanjay Dutt and Hitendra Vishnu Thakur decisions squarely applicable - Non-compliance with these safeguards invalidated the extension orders (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the orders passed by the Special Court extending the period for investigation up to 180 days under Section 20(2) of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015, without procuring the presence of the accused and without informing them about the Public Prosecutor's reports, are legal and whether the appellants are entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Special Court extending the investigation period and the common judgment of the Gujarat High Court, holding that the extension orders were illegal due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards, and granted default bail to the appellants under Section 167(2) CrPC as their bail applications were filed after expiry of 90 days but before charge sheet
Law Points
- Mandatory production of accused before Special Court when considering Public Prosecutor's report for extension of investigation period under Section 20(2) of Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act
- 2015
- Right to default bail under Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973 is a fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India
- Procedural safeguards must be strictly followed in extension of detention periods under special statutes
