LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/fakhrey-alam-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-20210315/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

Fakhrey Alam vs The State of Uttar Pradesh

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
15 March 2021
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2021
Result
Allowed
Bench
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, R. Subhash Reddy
Citation
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 1000 : 2021 INSC 183
Supreme Court Reports [2021] 2 S.C.R. 1000 : 2021 INSC 183
Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.167 – Default bail – FIR against appellant under provisions of IPC, Arms Act and the UAPA Act –Appellant, if entitled to default bail under s.167(2) CrPC in the facts of the case – Held: Entitled – s.167 CrPC provides for time period within which the investigation should be completed, depending upon the nature of offences – Since, liberty is a Constitutional right, time periods are specified in default of which the accused will have a right to default bail, a valuable right – On facts, FIR was filed against appellant-accused inter alia u/s.18 of the UAPA Act – Period of 180 days to file the charge sheet qua UAPA Act had however elapsed – The State cannot take advantage of the fact that there is one charge sheet and supplementary charge sheets are used to extend the time period by seeking to file supplementary charge sheet qua the offences under the UAPA Act even beyond the period specified under s.167 CrPC beyond which default bail will be admissible, i.e, the period of 180 days – Default bail under first proviso of s.167(2) CrPC is a fundamental right and not merely a statutory right as it is a procedure established by law u/Art. 21 of the Constitution – Thus a fundamental right is granted to an accused person to be released on bail once the conditions of the first proviso to s.167(2) CrPC are fulfilled – In fact an oral application for grant of default bail would suffice – The consequences of the UAPA Act are drastic in punishment and in that context, it is not a mere statutory right but part of the procedure established by law u/Art. 21 of the Constitution – IPC – Arms Act – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Art.21.

Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 616; and Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Ors. (2013)

5 SCC 762 : [2012] 13 SCR 1005 – relied on.

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Order of the Court was passed : ORDER 2. An FIR bearing No. 04/2017 has been registered against the appellant-accused Fakhrey Alam under Section 420,467, 468, 471 and 120-B, IPC and 3/25/30 of the Arms Act and under Section 18 of the UAPA Act, 1967. 1. Leave granted. 3. The appellant was arrested on 08.03.2017 and on 03.06.2017, learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow granted a total of 180 days to the police for filing the charge sheet. The police filed charge sheet on 04.09.2017 under the aforesaid provisions, except under the UAPA Act as it was mandatory to obtain prose
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →