Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.201/120-B – Arms Act, 1959 – ss. 13/18/20 – The High Court had relied upon the judgment in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others wherein the Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions of s.20(4) (bb) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and had observed that the period for granting extension of investigation could not be extended in a casual manner – Propriety:
Held: In the instant case, the period of 90 days expired on 15.09.2020 – Before the expiry of the said period on the request of the Investigating Officer, the time for investigation was extended by order dated 11.09.2020 for a further period of two months till 11.11.2020 – Investigation was not completed – Public Prosecutor moved another application dated 07.11.2020 requesting for further extension of time for investigation for a period of 30 days as per the provisions contained in s. 43D (2)
(b) of UAPA – The said application was allowed by the Trial Court on 10.11.2020 and the period of investigation was further extended till 30.11.2020 – The respondent moved an application on 11.11.2020 itself u/s. 167 of the CrPC for release on bail – The said application was rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 17.11.2020 – However, the High Court granted the default bail – Reliance placed upon the judgment in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur by the High Court was misplaced – It was a case relating to TADA, whereas the present case related to UAPA – The provisions under UAPA s.43D(2)(b) are different and give other reasons also for extension of time for investigation – The High Court also committed an error in recording a finding that sanction had already been received prior to the date of making the application for extension in November 2020 – The recording of the said fact is not correct – The Public Prosecutor in the application had clearly mentioned that the sanction u/s. 45(1) of UAPA had been obtained from Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and was attached with the case file – However, the sanction u/s. 45(2) of UAPA was awaited from GNCT Delhi and that the sanction u/s. 39 of the Arms Act was to be obtained after the results from the FSL was received – The High Court also fell in error in not taking into consideration the reasons given u/s. 43D(2) (b) were clearly made out and explained in the extension letter dated 07.11.2020 giving the details of the progress of the investigation as also the reasons for detaining the respondent – The High Court also failed to consider that after completing the investigation, Police report u/s. 173(2) CrPC had already been submitted prior to 30.11.2020 which was the last date of the extended period – The High Court committed an error in allowing the petition and granting default bail to the respondent – The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. [Paras 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 5, 8, 10, 12] Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – s.43D(2)(b): Held: From a perusal of the provision i.e. 43 D(2)(b), the extension for investigation could be granted up to a maximum period of 180 days for the following reasons: (i) Completion of the investigation;
(ii) Progress in the investigation was explained; and (iii) Specific reasons for detention beyond a period of 90 days. [Para 6] List of Citations and Other References
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others [1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 360:(1994) 4 SCC 602 – held inapplicable.
State of Maharashtra vs. Surendra Pundlik Gadling and others [2019] 3 SCR 310:(2019) 5 SCC 178 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.