Early Times Report
JAMMU, Mar 5: In a significant order with implications for UAPA prosecutions, the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (Designated Court under Section 22 NIA Act) has rejected a default bail plea moved by three accused in a terror-linked case, holding that the chargesheet was filed within 178 days of their arrest and, therefore, the right to "indefeasible" default bail did not arise.
The order was passed by Madan Lal, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, in Bail/559/2026. The prosecution was represented by SPP Rohit Sharma (Advocate) for SIA, while the accused were represented by Irfan Khan (Advocate).
The accused-Raiz, Yunus Ahmed (both sons of Mohd Latief) and Mema (wife of Mohd Latief), residents of Sufain (Ama Nal), Kathua-had sought default bail claiming that they were arrested on 28.04.2025 and that the investigating agency filed an "incomplete" chargesheet only to defeat their right under Section 43D(2)(a) UA(P) Act read with Section 187 BNSS, which governs the outer limit for filing the police report in UAPA cases.
Opposing the plea, the State Investigation Agency (SIA) submitted that the chargesheet was presented on 22.10.2025, well within the permissible period-178 days from the date of arrest. It further maintained that investigation had been completed as far as the applicants were concerned and that any further probe regarding alleged links with killed/absconding terrorists would be carried forward through a supplementary chargesheet under Section 193(8) BNSS, if required.
During arguments, the defence relied upon the Supreme Court ruling in Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India & Ors to contend that a chargesheet cannot be filed without completing investigation merely to deprive an accused of default bail. The prosecution, however, cited the Supreme Court order in Directorate of Enforcement v. Manpreet Singh Talwar, asserting that courts can decide default bail on the statutory timeline and facts without necessarily invoking Ritu Chhabaria.
After hearing both sides, the Designated Court held that the applicants failed to make out a case for default bail on the facts and law, noting that the chargesheet was filed within time. The plea was accordingly dismissed, and the accused were denied default bail. (JNF) |
