Delhi High Court Holds Order Extending UAPA Investigation to 180 Days Is Interlocutory; Appeal Under NIA Act Not Maintainable, Remedy Lies Under Section 482 CrPC
UAPA Accused Must Challenge Investigation Extension Through Section 482 CrPC, Not Appeal, Holds Delhi High Court
Facts
The appellants, all Ukrainian nationals, were arrested in connection with NIA FIR RC No. 07/2026/NIA/DLI registered under Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) on allegations of conspiring with local ethnic armed groups to carry out activities prejudicial to India’s national security.
Before expiry of the statutory 90-day investigation period, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) filed an application under Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA seeking extension of time for investigation up to 180 days, citing the need to analyse digital devices and investigate multiple facets of the alleged conspiracy.
The Special NIA Court allowed the application on 4 June 2026, extending the investigation period to 180 days. The accused challenged the order before the Delhi High Court under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, contending that the extension defeated their statutory right to default bail.
Issues
- Whether an order granting extension of investigation up to 180 days under Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA is appealable under Section 21 of the NIA Act.
- Whether such an order is an interlocutory, intermediate, or final order.
- Whether the proper remedy against such an order lies by way of appeal or under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The appellants argued that:
- the impugned order had the direct consequence of defeating their statutory right to default bail;
- deprivation of default bail directly affected their liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution;
- an order granting extension possessed sufficient finality to qualify as an appealable order;
- since the Delhi High Court had earlier held in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Anamul Ansari that an order refusing extension is appealable, an order granting extension should equally be appealable;
- alternatively, if the appeal was held not maintainable, it should be treated as a petition under Section 482 CrPC.
Respondents’ Arguments
The NIA submitted that:
- the order extending investigation was purely interlocutory;
- Section 21 of the NIA Act expressly bars appeals against interlocutory orders;
- several High Courts had consistently held that such orders are not appealable;
- the appellants remained free to invoke the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (or the corresponding provision under the BNSS);
- Anamul Ansari dealt with an entirely different situation involving refusal of extension, which finally conferred default bail upon the accused.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined:
- Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008;
- Section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967;
- Section 167 CrPC and the corresponding provisions under the BNSS;
- principles governing default bail; and
- the distinction between final, intermediate, and interlocutory orders.
The Court observed that Section 43D(2)(b) permits extension of investigation beyond ninety days upon satisfaction of the Trial Court regarding the progress of investigation and the specific reasons for continued detention. Such extension merely postpones the accused’s entitlement to default bail and does not finally determine any substantive right.
Precedent Analysis
The Court considered and reconciled several decisions, including:
- Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra — classification of final, interlocutory and intermediate orders.
- State (NCT of Delhi) v. Anamul Ansari — refusal of extension held appealable because it finally entitled the accused to default bail.
- Syed Shahid Yousuf v. National Investigation Agency — grant of extension held interlocutory and challenge maintainable only under Section 482 CrPC.
- National Investigation Agency v. Akhil Gogoi (Full Bench, Gauhati High Court).
- Jai Kishan Sharma v. Union of India.
- M. Ravindran v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence — relationship between applications seeking extension of investigation and default bail.
The Court distinguished Anamul Ansari, holding that refusal of extension irreversibly determines the parties’ rights by immediately entitling the accused to default bail, whereas grant of extension merely postpones that statutory right.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the effect of granting extension under Section 43D(2)(b) is fundamentally different from refusing such extension.
Where extension is refused, the prosecution permanently loses the opportunity to continue investigation beyond ninety days and the accused immediately acquires an enforceable right to default bail. Such an order therefore possesses finality.
Conversely, when extension is granted:
- the accused’s right to default bail is not extinguished;
- it is merely deferred from the 91st day to the 181st day;
- the Trial Court merely exercises statutory discretion after examining the Public Prosecutor’s report regarding the progress of investigation.
Accordingly, such an order neither finally determines the rights of the parties nor possesses the characteristics of an intermediate order. It remains purely interlocutory, against which no appeal lies under Section 21 of the NIA Act.
However, following the earlier decision in Syed Shahid Yousuf, the Court held that such an order remains amenable to judicial review under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS. Since the appellants requested conversion of the proceedings, the Court directed that the appeal be renumbered as a petition under the appropriate provision instead of requiring fresh proceedings.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that an order granting extension of investigation under Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA is an interlocutory order and, therefore, no appeal lies under Section 21 of the NIA Act.
The Court clarified that the grant of extension merely postpones the accused’s statutory right to default bail and does not finally determine it. It consequently disposed of the appeal with directions to renumber it as a petition under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS and place it before the appropriate Single Judge for adjudication on merits.
Case Details
Case: Hurba Petro & Others v. Union of India & Others
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 630 of 2026
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan
Date: 4 August 2026
Result: Appeal held not maintainable under Section 21 of the NIA Act. The Court held that an order granting extension of investigation under Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA is an interlocutory order. The appeal was directed to be renumbered as a petition under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS for consideration on merits.
