High Court of Karnataka
Credit: DH Photo
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Anirudh Rajan, a member of CPI (Maoist) from Chennai, arrested by Upparpet police in September last year.
A division bench comprising Justices Sreenivas Harish Kumar and KS Hemalekha noted that if the prosecution files an application for extension of time to complete the investigation before the expiry of the statutory period with the report containing compelling reasons for extension, the accused does not acquire an indefeasible right to default bail, even if the court grants extension after the expiry of the original period.
“Merely because the application remained pending at the time when the accused filed the application for default bail, it cannot be said that the accused acquired an indefeasible right to bail and therefore the accused is not entitled to default bail under Section 187(3) of BNSS,” the court said.
The petitioner was arrested for the offences punishable under Sections 147 (Waging war against India), 152 (Subversive activities), 336 (forgery) and 340 (use of forged document) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and section 10 the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and section 66C of the Information Technology Act.
Anirudh Rajan, a chartered accountant, was arrested on September 5, 2024 and remanded to judicial custody the next day. The proceedings are pending before the Special Court for NIA cases, Bengaluru. The police alleged that Anirudh was working underground and arranging meetings and funds for Naxal sympathisers.
The initial period of 90 days to file the chargesheet had expired on December 5, 2024, and the prosecution filed the application under section 43–D (2)(b) of the UAP Act on December 3, 2024 seeking extension of time to complete the investigation. On December 5, 2024, the petitioner filed an application seeking default bail under section 187(3) of BNSS. The trial court allowed the application filed by the prosecution and extended the period to file the chargesheet, and also extended the detention period in judicial custody from 90 days to 180 days.
It was argued on behalf of Anirudh that his indefeasible right to default bail has been violated, and said that an accused cannot be penalised for delays by the court in deciding the application of the prosecution.
On the other hand, the prosecution submitted that the investigating officer has retrieved 1.8 TB of data from the electronic devices seized from the accused. It was further submitted that the application seeking extension of time was filed within 90 days, as the data obtained from the accused required further investigation.