Md. Ariz Hasnain @ Ariz Hasnain v. State of Jharkhand 2026 INSC 456 - S.167(2) CrPC - Extension - Investigation Time
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 167(2) -A clear mandate exists restricting the custody of the accused for a period beyond 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be. If the investigation is not completed and chargesheet is not filed within the aforesaid period, it would give rise to an indefeasible right in favour of the accused to seek default bail. The grant of extension is not a mere formality but must be preceded by due application of mind both by the Public Prosecutor and the Court. (Para 28,34) [Context: The Supreme Court held that the Special Judge’s first order extending the time for completion of investigation under UAPA was illegal because the accused was neither produced nor notified and no real reasons were recorded, and subsequent extensions were similarly mechanical. ]
Case Info
Basic Case Details
Case name: Md. Ariz Hasnain @ Ariz Hasnain v. State of Jharkhand
Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 456
Court & Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, Criminal Appeal (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 11860 of 2025)
Coram
Justice Vikram NathJustice Sandeep Mehta
(As shown in the signatures at the end of the order.)
Judgment Date
30 April 2026 (NEW DELHI; APRIL 30, 2026.)
Case Laws and Citations Referred
- Jigar v. State of Gujarat, (2023) 6 SCC 484
- Sanjay Dutt v. State, (1994) 5 SCC 410 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1433
- Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1087
(Primarily cited for the law on extension of time for investigation, production of the accused, and the right to default bail.)
Statutes / Laws Referred
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
- Section 167(2) – maximum period of detention during investigation and right to default bail
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
- Section 124A
- Section 153A
- Section 120B
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)
- Sections 16, 18, 20, 38, 39
- Section 43-D(2) – extension of time for investigation and continued detention
- Constitution of India
- Article 21 – right to life and personal liberty (referred to in the context of default bail and procedural safeguards)
Three-Sentence Brief Summary
The Supreme Court held that the Special Judge’s first order dated 2 February 2024 extending the time for completion of investigation under UAPA was illegal because the accused was neither produced nor notified and no real reasons were recorded, and subsequent extensions were similarly mechanical. Since the statutory 90-day period under Section 167(2) CrPC had expired without a valid extension and the accused had already applied for default bail before filing of the chargesheet, his indefeasible right to default bail had crystallized. The Court therefore set aside the impugned orders and directed that the appellant be released on default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, subject to conditions to be fixed by the trial court.