Default bail vs regular bail: What’s the difference in Jasir Wani’s Red Fort blast case?

There is a number at the centre of this legal battle: 90.

Under ordinary criminal procedure, if an investigation into a serious offence is not completed within the prescribed period and a chargesheet is not filed, an accused can acquire a statutory right to what is commonly called default bail.

But what happens when the case is being investigated under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or UAPA?

That is the legal question at the heart of the latest court battle involving Jasir Bilal Wani alias Danish, an accused in the Red Fort blast case.

On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court rejected Wani’s plea for default bail. A bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan held that he was not entitled to default bail merely because 90 days had passed. The court also said he remained free to pursue other legal remedies. Hindustan Times reported the court’s observations, noting that a detailed copy of the judgment was awaited.

So, what is the difference between default bail and regular bail?

First, what is default bail? Think of default bail as a legal deadline.

Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, provides that where an investigation concerns an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment of 10 years or more, an accused can be released on bail after 90 days if the investigation has not been completed and the statutory conditions for default bail are met.

It is called “default” bail because the right arises from the investigating agency's failure to complete the investigation and file the required report within the applicable statutory period.

But there is an important catch in UAPA cases.

Why is 90 days not necessarily the end of the road under UAPA?

UAPA has a special provision. Section 43D(2) modifies the ordinary investigation period and allows the 90-day period to be extended up to 180 days, provided the statutory conditions are satisfied. The court must consider a report by the Public Prosecutor showing the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for keeping the accused in custody beyond 90 days. The extension is therefore not automatic.

That is precisely where Wani’s case turned. His lawyers challenged the extension of the investigation period beyond 90 days, arguing that the extension application had been moved by the National Investigation Agency on February 13, while the original 90-day period was due to expire on February 15.

The Delhi High Court has now rejected that challenge to default bail.

So, what is regular bail?

Regular bail is a different legal route altogether. Here, the question isn't simply whether investigators crossed a statutory deadline. The court examines the circumstances of the case and the legal restrictions applicable to the alleged offences.

And UAPA makes that test particularly stringent. Under Section 43D(5), for offences under Chapters IV and VI of the UAPA, an accused in custody cannot be released on bail if, after examining the case diary or the prosecution report, the court finds reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised the special bail framework created by this provision.

So, in simple terms:

Default bail asks: Did the investigating agency cross the legally permitted time limit without a valid extension and chargesheet?

Regular bail asks: Given the allegations, evidence and applicable law, should this accused be released while the case continues?

They are not the same question.

Then what did the Delhi High Court decide?

Wani had approached the High Court after a trial court rejected his default-bail plea. His argument centred on the statutory period for investigation and the validity of the extension granted to the NIA.

The High Court, however, held that Wani was not entitled to default bail merely after 90 days. According to Hindustan Times, the bench also clarified that the reference to the old Section 167 of the CrPC in Section 43D of the UAPA has to be read in the context of the corresponding Section 187 of the BNSS.

That matters because India's new criminal procedure laws came into force in July 2024, replacing the earlier CrPC framework. The BNSS itself identifies Section 187 as the provision dealing with situations where an investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours and sets out the 60- and 90-day custody framework.

Does rejection of default bail mean Wani has been found guilty?

No. This is perhaps the most important distinction. The High Court's order concerns Wani's claim to default bail and the legal framework governing the investigation period. It is not a final verdict on the allegations against him.

The NIA filed a 7,500-page chargesheet against 10 accused in May 2026. The agency has alleged that Wani provided technical support to the conspiracy and described him as an “in-house engineer”. Those are prosecution allegations, not a finding of guilt.

Why does this distinction matter? Because “bail” is not one single legal concept. An accused may seek release through different legal routes, and each comes with its own rules. In Wani's case, the immediate question was not whether he should be acquitted or whether the allegations were finally proved.

It was narrower — and highly procedural: Had the legal clock run out? The Delhi High Court has answered that question against his default-bail plea.

The larger criminal case, however, continues. And that is the key thing to remember when you hear the phrase “default bail”: it is about a statutory deadline, not a declaration of innocence. In this case, 90 days was not the finish line. It became the beginning of a legal argument over what happens next.

(With inputs from ANI)