JUDGEBIR SINGH @ JASBIR SINGH SAMRA @ JASBIR & ORS. versus NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

Citation: [2023] 6 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 01-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 1
1
JUDGEBIR SINGH @ JASBIR SINGH SAMRA @ JASBIR
& ORS.
v.
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
(Criminal Appeal No. 1011 of 2023)
MAY 01, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND
J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
ss. 167(2), 173 – Default Bail – Entitlement to, u/s. 167(2) –
Though the chargesheet might have been filed within the statutory
time period as prescribed in law yet the chargesheet was without a
valid order of sanction passed by a competent authority – Held : It
cannot be said that a chargesheet filed without sanction is an
incomplete chargesheet which could be termed as not in consonance
with s. 173 – According sanction is the duty of the sanctioning
authority who is not connected with the investigation at all – In
case the sanctioning authority takes some time to accord sanction,
that does not vitiate the final report filed by the investigating agency
before the Court – s. 173 does not speak about the sanction order
at all – s. 167 also speaks only about investigation and not about
cognizance by the Magistrate – Filing of a chargesheet is sufficient
compliance with the provisions of s. 167 and that an accused cannot
claim any indefeasible right of being released on statutory/default
bail u/s. 167(2) on the ground that cognizance has not been taken
before the expiry of the statutory time period to file the chargesheet
– Grant of sanction is nowhere contemplated u/s. 167.
Default bail – Entitlement to, u/s. 167(2) when error on the
part of the investigating agency to file chargesheet for the offence
enumerated, in the Court of Magistrate and not in the Sessions or
designated Court – Held : Error on the part of the investigating
agency in filing chargesheet first before the Court of Magistrate
has nothing to do with the right of the accused to seek statutory/
default bail u/s. 167(2) – Committal proceedings are not warranted,
when it comes to prosecution under the UAPA by the NIA by virtue
of s. 16 of the NIA Act – This is because the Special Court acts, as
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
one of the original jurisdictions – By virtue of s. 16 of the NIA Act,
the Court need not follow the requirements of Section 193 CrPC –
On facts, the application seeking default bail u/s.167(2) r/w s. 43D
of the UAPA was filed before the Special Judge, NIA, on 14.12.2020
and by that time, the chargesheet had already been filed and the
proceedings were pending in the court of Special Judge, CBI –
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – s.16 – Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act,1967.
S. 167 – Investigation – Investigating agencies seeking
extension of time to complete investigation – Advise to NIA as well
as the State investigating agency seeking extension of time, to be
careful that such extension is not prayed for at the last moment –
Right to be released on default bail continues to remain enforceable
if the accused has applied for it, notwithstanding pendency of the
bail application or subsequent filing of the chargesheet or a report
seeking extension of time by the prosecution before the court –
However, where the accused fails to apply for default bail when the
right accrues to him, and subsequently a chargesheet, or a report
seeking extension of time is preferred, the right to default bail would
be extinguished – Court would be at liberty to take cognizance of
the case or grant further time for completion of the investigation,
though the accused may still be released on bail under other
provisions of the CrPC.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It cannot be said that a chargesheet filed
without sanction is an incomplete chargesheet which could be
termed as not in consonance with sub section (5) of Section 173
CrPC. Whether the sanction is required or not under a statute,
is a question that has to be considered at the time of taking
cognizance of the offence and not during inquiry or investigation.
There is a marked distinction in the stage of investigation and
prosecution. The prosecution starts when the cognizance of
offence is taken. It is also to be kept in mind that cognizance is
taken of the offence and not of the offender. It cannot be said that
obtaining sanction from the competent authorities or the
authorities concerned is part of investigation. Sanction is required
only to enable the court to take cognizance of the offence. The
court may take cognizance of the offence after the sanction order
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
was produc

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.