Supreme Court Rules: Police Statement on “Sufficient Material for Chargesheet” Does Not Imply Investigation is Complete

Author: Rahul Singh Advocate, Founder, Aapka Adhivakta Law Firm

Executive Summary

In The State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan @ Moin Mistri & Anr. (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12932 of 2026), the Supreme Court of India has held that a passing statement by the prosecution or police in an extension application indicating that “sufficient material exists to file a chargesheet” cannot be misconstrued by courts to mean that the investigation is fully complete.

The Apex Court ruled that analyzing forensic data, examining bank transactions, and awaiting statutory sanctions are intrinsic parts of an active investigation, and high courts cannot prematurely curtail the police’s domain to investigate serious offenses under special statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

Case Background & Procedural History

1. The FIR & Arrest: On 21.09.2022, an FIR was registered by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), Mumbai, under sections 120B, 121A, 153A of the IPC and section 13(1)(b) of the UAPA. The respondents were arrested on 22.09.2022.
2. Extensions for Investigation: As the 90-day statutory period approached its limit, the Special Court granted an initial 30-day extension, followed by a second extension of 15 days under Section 43D of the UAPA, to allow the investigating agency to retrieve electronic evidence from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and process sanction proposals.
3. Default Bail Plea & High Court Ruling: The respondents moved for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, arguing that a statement in the extension application confirming “enough evidence to file a chargesheet” proved the investigation was complete, making any further extension invalid. The Bombay High Court agreed, setting aside the extension order and granting default bail.
4. Supreme Court Appeal: The State of Maharashtra appealed the High Court’s decision to the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Principles Laid Down by the Supreme Court

• Investigation is an Exclusive Police Domain: Courts cannot interfere with or prematurely halt the statutory right and discretion of the police to investigate a cognizable crime. A stray or pragmatic statement in an application that sufficient material is available cannot be twisted to mean that the entire investigation has concluded.
• Forensic Analysis and Scrutiny are Part of Investigation: The analysis of digital data retrieved from seized mobile phones, laptops, and the verification of suspicious bank accounts and foreign fund flows form an essential part of the investigative process.
• Distinction Between Investigation and Cognizance: Obtaining prosecution sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA is a requirement for taking cognizance by the court, not a prerequisite for concluding an investigation or submitting a final report. However, the time required to compile scientific data to satisfy a sanctioning authority is a valid ground for seeking time extensions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and upholding the validity of the second extension order. The ruling reinforces that courts must adopt a practical, contextual approach when interpreting judicial applications rather than picking stray phrases out of context to dismantle ongoing terrorism investigations.