[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Aytu Usendi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:13998-DB
NAFR
Digitally signed by
INDRAJEET INDRAJEET SAHU HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SAHU Date: 2026.03.25
18:51:30 +0530
CRA No. 1689 of 2025
1 - Aytu Usendi S/o Manu Usendi Aged About 36 Years
2 - Dhoba Badhda S/o Bondga Aged About 28 Years
3 - Dhoba Badhda S/o Gore Badhda Aged About 21 Years
R/o Village Kodliyar, P.S. Kohkameta, District Narayanpur (C.G.)
... Appellants
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Kohkameta, District Narayanpur
(C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Shri Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate.
For State : Shri Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Judgment on Board
24.03.2026
Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ.
1 The present appeal has been preferred under Section 21 (4) of the
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the
NIA Act") filed by the appellants against the impugned order dated
10.06.2025 passed by Special Judge (NIA Act/Scheduled Offences),
Narayanpur, District Narayanpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Special
Judge") in connection with Crime No.13/2024, registered at Police
Station Kohkameta, District Narayanpur, for the offences punishable
under Sections 191(2),191(3),190,61(2),111(2)(b) and 103 of BNS,
2023, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 for short, 'Arms Act')
as well as Sections 3,4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908,
Section 10,13(1),16,20,38(2) and 39(2) of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, 'UAPA). By the said order dated
10.06.2025 the application filed by the appellants under Sections
167(2) of CrPC read with Section 187(2) of BNSS, 2023 has been
rejected holding that the period for filing charge sheet has already been
extended up to 180 days as provided under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the
UAPA and in view of the aforesaid extension of period for completion of
investigation, the application filed by the appellants is not maintainable.
2 Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have approached this Court
contending that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality and
material irregularity. It is urged that the extension of time granted under
Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA was mechanical and contrary to the
mandatory requirements of law, and consequently, the rejection of the
appellant's application for default bail under Section167(2) CrPC read
with Section 187 of the BNSS has resulted in a serious infraction of the
appellant's indefeasible right to personal liberty as guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
3 The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellants Aytu Usendi,
Dhoba Badhd S/o Bondga and Dhoba Badhda S/o Gore Badhda are
the accused persons in the aforesaid crime registered at Police Station
Kohkameta. The allegation against the appellants are that they been
associated with certain unlawful and extremist activities connected with
banned organisations and involved in illegal activities prejudicial to the
sovereignty and integrity of the country and has committed the alleged
offence. The appellants have been arrested on 27.01.2025. They were
sent to judicial custody and detained in Sub-jail Narayanpur from
27.01.2025. After lapse of 108 days of their detention in jail under
judicial remand, the appellant have filed an application under Section
167(2) CrPC read with Section 187(2) BNSS on the ground that 90
days period for completion of investigation is lapsed, yet final report
could not be submitted by the police and there is no permission
obtained from the court for further investigation. Therefore, the
appellants are entitled for default bail.
4 Learned counsel appearing for the appellants assailed the impugned
orders dated 10.06.2025 as being wholly unsustainable in law and in
direct contravention of the mandatory statutory safeguards embodied
in Section 43-D(2) (b) of the UAPA and Section 187 of the BNSS. He
further submits that the order dated 10.06.2025 by which the
application of the appellants have been rejected is void ab initio
inasmuch as it was passed without proper consideration of the legal
provisions of Section 43-D(2) (b) of the UAPA. It is further submitted
that extension granted under Section 43-D(2) (b) of the UAPA was
based on no valid report of Public Prosecutor as contemplated by the
statute. There is no independent analysis of the investigating officer,
evaluation of progress of investigation. The cumulative conditions must
be satisfied before extension of time is granted including a reasoned
report of the Public Prosecutor indicating progress of investigation and
specific reasons for further detention. In absence of such independent
report strikes at the root of jurisdiction and renders the extension
completely illegal.
5 On the other hand learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes
the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants and supported
the impugned order dated 10.06.2025. He further submits that FIR
bearing Crime No.13/2024 was registered for serious offences
punishable under Sections 191(2),191(3),190,61(2),111(2)(b) and 103
of BNS, 2023, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act as well as Sections
3,4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act and Sections
10,13(1),16,20,38(2) and 39(2) of the UAPA. It is further contended that
the nature of the allegations pertains to organised unlawful activities
connected with extremist elements, and the investigation is of a
complex and sensitive character involving multiple accused persons,
several of whom were absconding at the relevant time. The judicial
remand of the appellants were granted by the trial court under the
provisions of Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA which was based on
proper appreciation of police report as well as legal provisions. Looking
to complex fact and instances of the case as well as absconding
accused persons, the manner needs further investigation for which
time was extended by the trial court up to 180 days and charge sheet
has been filed on 29.07.2025 before the Special Court (NIA Act)
Narayanpur against the present appellants. The State counsel would
further submit that the issue involved in the present case has already
been considered by this court in Ramesh Mandavi Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh in CRA No.2656 of 2025 decided on 02.03.2026.
Therefore, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
6 We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
material annexed with the appeal.
7 At this stage, it would be relevant to quote Section 43-D(2)(b) of the
UAPA, which is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"Section 43-D(2)(b) Modified application of certain
provisions of the Code- (1)
"(2) Section 167 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case
involving an offence punishalbe under this Act subject to the
modification that in sub-section (2),--
(a) the references to 'fifteen days', 'ninety days' and 'sixty
days', wherever they occur, shall be construed as
references to 'thirty days', 'ninety days' and 'ninety days',
respectively; and
(b) after the proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted,
namely:--
"Provided further that if it is not possible to complete
the investigation within the said period of ninety days, the
Court may, if it is satisfied with the report of the Public
Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and
the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond
the said period of ninety days, extend the said period up to
one hundred and eighty days:"
8 A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear
that the power of the Court to extend the period of investigation beyond
ninety days is conditional and can be exercised only upon: (i) a report
of the Public Prosecutor; (ii) such report indicating the progress of
investigation; and (iii) specific reasons for continued detention of the
accused beyond ninety days. The satisfaction of the Court is, thus,
statutorily tethered to and contingent upon the existence of a valid and
independent report of the Public Prosecutor.
9 From perusal of order sheets of trial court it transpires that judicial
remand of appellants were granted by the trial court under the
provisions of Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA and under the extended
time of 180 days, the charge sheet was filed on 29.07.2025. It further
reflects that an application under Section 167(2)CrPC read with
Section 187(2) BNSS was filed by the present appellants on
29.05.2025. It further transpires from order sheet dated 26.04.2025
that the State was represented through the office of SDO(P)
Narayanpur who moved an application for extension of time to
complete investigation as provided under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the
UAPA supported by an affidavit of SDO(P) Narayanpur and the trial
court has extended the time to complete the investigation against the
present appellants up to 180 days vide its order dated 26.04.2025.
Since the period to complete investigation was already extended to
180 days vide order dated 26.04.2025, the application filed by the
present appellants on 29.05.2025 claiming that period to complete
investigation is 90 days and the appellants have been detained in
judicial custody for more than 90 days, they are entitled for default bail,
is misconceived. Under the provisions of Section 43-D(2)(b) of the
UAPA, the time was already extended and application of the appellants
for grant of default bail apparently was not maintainable. The extension
of time to complete investigation under the provisions of Section 43-
D(2)(b) of the UAPA has already been considered by this court in
Ramesh Mandavi (Supra).
10 The application filed by the present appellants is found to be within the
extended period of completion of investigation. Thus, we do not find
any perversity or infirmity in the order dated 10.06.2025 passed by the
Special Judge (NIA Act) Narayanpur, rejecting the application filed by
the appellants as the period to complete the investigation has already
been extended up to 180 days under the provisions of Section 43-D(2)
(b) of the UAPA.
11 Accordingly, the learned Special Judge, by order dated 10.06.2025
rightly held that the application under Section 167(2) CrPC / Section
187(2) BNSS was not maintainable in view of the valid extension
already granted. The rejection of the application, therefore, cannot be
characterised as either illegal or as an infraction of the appellant's
constitutional right to personal liberty, but rather as a faithful application
of the statutory scheme governing investigation of offences under the
UAPA.
12 We are also mindful of the nature of allegations, which pertain to
offences under the UAPA involving activities alleged to be prejudicial to
sovereignty and integrity of the nation, in addition to serious penal
offences under the IPC and Arms Act. The legislative intent behind
incorporating Section 43-D(2)(b) is to enable a fair and effective
investigation in complex cases of this nature, while at the same time
subjecting extension of custody to judicial scrutiny. In the present
matter, such scrutiny was indeed exercised.
13 In appellate jurisdiction under Section 21 of the NIA Act, interference is
warranted only when the impugned order suffers from patent illegality,
perversity, or jurisdictional error. We do not find that the learned
Special Judge has transgressed statutory limits, ignored mandatory
requirements, or acted in a manner so arbitrary as to warrant
interference, as we have already considered and decided similar issue
in Ramesh Mandavi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (Supra).
14 Consequently, we hold that the order dated 26.04.2025 extending the
period of investigation from 90 days to 180 days under Section 43-D(2)
(b) of the UAPA is legally sustainable, and the subsequent order dated
10.06.2025 rejecting the appellant's application for default bail under
Section 187(2) of the BNSS does not suffer from any infirmity.
15 The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
16 Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
inder
