SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has rejected the appeal of three accused in a terror-related case registered in Kathua, holding that the investigation had been completed within the prescribed period and that the accused were not entitled to default bail.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Yash Paul Bourney dismissed the appeal filed by Raiz, 24, Younis, 21, and their mother Meema, 60, challenging an order dated February 28, 2026, passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, who had declined to grant them default bail.
The judgment was pronounced on October 21, 2026, after the matter was reserved on September 29, 2026.
The appeal had been filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008, against the trial court’s refusal to grant default bail in FIR No. 61/2025, registered under Sections 13, 16, 18, 23, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), along with various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Explosive Substances Act and the Arms Act.
The central question before the High Court was whether the three accused had acquired an indefeasible right to default bail because the investigating agency had allegedly filed an incomplete charge-sheet within the statutory period.
According to the case records, the FIR was registered on March 28, 2025, and the three accused were arrested on April 28, 2025. The charge-sheet was subsequently filed on October 25, 2025.
Counsel for the appellants, Advocate Irfan Khan, argued that the investigation had not been completed when the charge-sheet was submitted and that the investigating agency had filed an incomplete report to deprive the accused of their statutory right to default bail.
He particularly relied on paragraph 18.3 of the charge-sheet, which stated that investigations were continuing into certain aspects of the case, including efforts to establish links between the accused and terrorists who had been killed or were absconding.
The appellants argued that the investigating agency had yet to establish these alleged links and that the investigation into an important aspect of the case remained incomplete. They relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India, reported as 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 352.
The Supreme Court, in that judgment, had held that an investigating agency could not file a charge-sheet without completing the investigation merely to deprive an arrested accused of the right to default bail.
It had further observed that such an incomplete charge-sheet would not extinguish the accused’s right to default bail and that a trial court could not continue remanding an accused beyond the maximum statutory period without considering the entitlement to such bail.
Emphasising the constitutional significance of the right, the Supreme Court had observed:
“the right of default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is not merely a statutory right, but a fundamental right that flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The apex court had also underlined the need for checks and balances on investigating agencies to prevent arbitrary exercise of power and harassment of accused persons.
However, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the trial court’s findings.
In its judgment, the Division Bench noted that although paragraph 18.3 of the charge-sheet referred to continuing investigations to establish the alleged links between the accused and the slain or absconding terrorists, paragraph 18.4 clearly stated that the offences under Sections 13 and 19 of the UAPA stood established against the three accused.
The Bench held that the mere possibility of filing a supplementary charge-sheet at a later stage did not render the original charge-sheet incomplete.
“Merely mentioning that investigating agency was still investigating and trying to establish the links between the appellants and the slain/absconding terrorists does not make out a case to project that investigation was incomplete,” the court observed.
After examining the charge-sheet, supporting material, statements of witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the order passed by the trial court, the High Court concluded that the investigation into the alleged involvement of the accused in the offences had been completed within the prescribed period.
The Bench noted that the investigating agency had collected oral accounts, electronic and forensic documents and call detail records (CDRs), among other material, in support of its case.
The court also declined to grant the appellants bail on merits, agreeing with the trial court that the material available on record did not justify their release.
The State Investigating Agency was represented by Priyanka Bhat, assisting counsel to Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli, while Advocate Irfan Khan appeared for the appellants.
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the trial court for information and further proceedings, with a direction to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
