J.B.PARDIWALA, J. - (1.)As the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are common and the challenge is also to the self-same order passed by the High Court, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
(2.)These appeals by special leave are at the instance of five under trial accused charged with having committed offences punishable under Sec. 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'), Ss. 17, 18, 18B and 20 respectively of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, 'the UAPA') and Ss. 4 and 5 respectively of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short, 'the 1908 Act') and are directed against the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dtd. 26/4/2022 in CRA-D No. 47 of 2021 (O&M) by which, the High Court dismissed the appeal and thereby declined to release the accused persons on default bail under Sec. 167(2) of the CrPC.
(3.)The seminal issues falling for the consideration of this Court may be formulated as under:-
(i) Whether an accused is entitled to seek default bail under the provisions of Sec. 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the CrPC') on the ground that although the chargesheet might have been filed within the statutory time period as prescribed in law yet the chargesheet sans a valid order of sanction passed by a competent authority is no chargesheet in the eye of law and therefore, it is as good as saying that no chargesheet was filed by the investigating agency within the statutory time period as prescribed in law? To put it more succinctly, whether the Court concerned is precluded in any manner for the purpose of Sec. 167 of the CrPC from taking notice of the chargesheet that might have been filed by the investigating agency in the absence of a valid order of sanction?

(ii) Whether cognizance of the chargesheet is necessary to prevent the accused from seeking default bail or whether mere filing of the chargesheet would suffice for the investigation to be deemed complete? To put it in different words, whether the grant of sanction is contemplated under Sec. of the 167 CrPC?

(iii) A Special Court may not be in a position to take cognizance on account of failure on the part of the prosecution to obtain sanction to prosecute the accused under the UAPA and the 1908 Act, but does such failure amount to non-compliance with the provisions of Sec. 167(2) of the CrPC so as to entitle the accused to seek default bail?

(iv) Whether filing of the chargesheet for the offences as enumerated above, in the Court of the Magistrate and the Magistrate thereafter, committing the case to the Court of Sessions or designated Court would vitiate all subsequent proceedings on the ground that Sec. 16 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, 'the NIA Act') empowers the Special Court to take cognizance of any offence without the accused being committed to it for trial upon receiving a police report? To put it in other words, whether the error on the part of the investigating agency to file chargesheet for the offence enumerated above, in the Court of Magistrate and not in the Sessions or designated Court would by itself entitle the accused to seek default bail under the provisions of Sec. 167(2) of the CrPC?