The respondent moved an application on 11.11.2020 itself under section 167 of the CrPC for release on bail. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 17.11.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred a petition under section 482 CrPC for setting aside the order dated 11.09.2020 and 10.11.2020 which was registered as Crl. M.C. No.2312 of 2020. This petition has since been allowed by the impugned order giving rise to the present appeal. (Para 3.5)
From a perusal of the above 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:
• Completion of the investigation;
• Progress in the investigation was explained; and
• Specific reasons for detention beyond a period of 90 days. (Para 6)
Provisions of section 43D(2)(b) were considered by this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Surendra Pundlik Gadling and others[(2019)5 SCC 178]. In the said case, the FSL report was awaited and it also required the detention of the accused wherein financial details of the respondent were still being ascertained in view of the huge conspiracy spreading over a number of cities were being investigated. The High Court failed to take into consideration the above judgment of 2019 relating to UAPA. It had relied upon a judgment of 1994 relating to provisions of TADA. (Para 7)
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 under section 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 under section 45(2) of UAPA was awaited from GNCT Delhi and that the sanction under section 39 of the Arms Act was to be obtained after the results from the FSL was received. (Para 8)
We are, therefore, of the view that the reason mentioned in the impugned order that the application had been filed for extension without any valid basis as the sanction had already been granted, was not correct. (Para 9)
The High Court also fell in error in not taking into consideration the reasons given under section 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 Public Prosecutor had mentioned in the request that major investigation of the case had been completed and the draft chargesheet had been prepared. However, for want of remaining sanctions and FSL report some more time was required for completing the investigation. (Para 10)
One more aspect to be considered is the nature of offence which involved terrorist activities having not only Pan India impact but also impact on other enemy States. The matter should not have been taken so lightly. (Para 13)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 6 SC
[2024 INSC 11]
State Of Nct Of Delhi Vs. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @Lovely
Criminal Appeal No 43 of 2024 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.2503 OF 2021)-Decided on 03-01-2024.
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2024-STPLWeb-6-SC.pdf
