The Supreme Court has held that a statement by the investigating agency that sufficient material has been collected to file a chargesheet does not, by itself, mean that the investigation is complete or that the accused is entitled to default bail.The ruling came in State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan @ Moin Mistri & Anr., decided on September 21, 2026.
The case arose from an investigation by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad into allegations under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The investigating agency had sought additional time to file the chargesheet, and the Special Court granted a further extension. The Bombay High Court subsequently held that the accused were entitled to default bail. The Supreme Court set aside that decision, holding that the High Court had erred in treating the investigating agency's statement about the availability of sufficient material as meaning that the investigation was complete.
+91 88262 30101
The Supreme Court has held that a statement by the investigating agency that sufficient material has been collected to file a chargesheet does not, by itself, mean that the investigation is complete or that the accused is entitled to default bail.The ruling came in State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan @ Moin Mistri & Anr., decided on September 21, 2026.
The case arose from an investigation by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad into allegations under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The investigating agency had sought additional time to file the chargesheet, and the Special Court granted a further extension. The Bombay High Court subsequently held that the accused were entitled to default bail. The Supreme Court set aside that decision, holding that the High Court had erred in treating the investigating agency's statement about the availability of sufficient material as meaning that the investigation was complete.