SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed the default bail application of Syed Ahmad Parimoo in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), holding that the prosecution had filed the charge-sheet within the statutory period of 180 days, thereby extinguishing his indefeasible right to default bail.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dr Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani, in an order dated October 22, 2026, held that the charge-sheet presented before the Special Court on October 12, 2026, was within the permissible period of investigation, which expired on October 15, 2026, when calculated from the petitioner’s first judicial remand on April 18, 2026.
The petition, Bail Application No. 180/2026, was filed by Parimoo seeking release under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, read with Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA and Article 21 of the Constitution. He had contended that the statutory period of 180 days had expired on September 28, 2026, and that his continued incarceration thereafter was illegal and unconstitutional.
Advocate Veerendra Mohan, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the investigating agency had exceeded the permissible period of detention without filing a charge-sheet, entitling his client to default bail. He also contended that Parimoo had been in custody since March 31, 2026, 17 days before the registration of the FIR, and that this period should be taken into account while calculating the statutory detention period.
Opposing the plea, Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin S Qadri, assisted by advocates Maha Majeed and Haaris Khan, submitted that the statutory period had to be calculated from April 18, 2026, when the petitioner was first produced before the Special Court and remanded to judicial custody. The prosecution maintained that the charge-sheet had been filed on October 12, four days before the completion of 180 days.
The government counsel relied on two earlier Division Bench judgments of the High Court, Syed Irfan Abdullah versus Union Territory of J&K and Riyaz Ahmad Hajam versus Union Territory of J&K, to argue that once a charge-sheet is filed within the prescribed or validly extended statutory period, the right to default bail ceases to exist.
In the Syed Irfan Abdullah case, the Division Bench had held that an accused must be afforded an opportunity to oppose an application seeking extension of the investigation period beyond 90 days, as such an extension directly affects the accused’s right to default bail. However, it had also rejected the default bail plea in that case because the application was premature and the investigating agency had obtained an extension of custody within the permissible period.
In Riyaz Ahmad Hajam, the High Court had reiterated that the filing of the charge-sheet within the extended statutory period extinguishes the right to default bail, irrespective of whether the competent court subsequently takes cognisance of the offences.
The Bench also examined the Supreme Court judgment in Enforcement Directorate, Government of India versus Kapil Wadhawan and Another, reported as 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 249. The Supreme Court had held that the statutory period for default bail must be computed from the date on which the Magistrate authorises the first remand and that an indefeasible right accrues to an accused immediately upon expiry of the prescribed period if the charge-sheet has not been filed.
The petitioner had sought to invoke this principle to argue that his custody should be counted from March 31, rather than April 18. However, the High Court found that the claim of prior custody had not been substantiated through any documentary evidence or contemporaneous proceedings before the courts.
The Bench observed that there was no material on record to establish that Parimoo had challenged or brought to the notice of any court his alleged illegal detention between March 31 and April 17, 2026. When questioned on whether this issue had been raised before the court below at the time of his first remand, the petitioner’s counsel fairly conceded that no such record was available.
The court noted that there was “not even an iota of evidence” or any application before it to suggest that the alleged illegal custody during this period had been brought to the attention of a judicial authority.
The FIR in the case, numbered 24/2026, was registered on April 17, 2026, following the apprehension of Parimoo and three others by a naka party with live hand grenades. He was produced before the Special Court at around 3:30 pm the following day and remanded to judicial custody.
During the investigation, the prosecution initially sought an extension beyond the first 90 days. On July 15, 2026, the Special Court extended the period of custody by 45 days, against the 90 days sought by the prosecution. Subsequently, on August 24, the court extended the investigation period to the statutory maximum of 180 days.
The High Court recorded that these extensions had been granted before the expiry of the respective authorised periods and that the charge-sheet was ultimately presented on October 12, before completion of the 180-day period.
“Since the charge-sheet was filed within the prescribed period, the indefeasible right of the applicant to default bail stood extinguished,” the Bench held.
Rejecting the contention that the petitioner was entitled to have his custody counted from March 31, the court concluded that even if the period of judicial remand was included in calculating the statutory period under the UAPA read with the BNSS, the petitioner was not entitled to default bail.
“In this limited perspective, the case for default bail is not made out,” the court concluded while dismissing the application.
