Brief Facts
- An FIR was registered in 2020 against the Respondent for offences under Sections 13, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1967), Section 201/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, pursuant to which the Respondent was arrested on 18.06.2020.
- On the request of the investigating officer, the time for investigation was extended by two months (i.e. till 11.11.2020) via order dated 11.09.2020, however the investigation still remained incomplete. Thereafter, on the application of Public Prosecutor, the Trial Court, via order dated 10.11.2020, provided further extension for completion of the investigation, i.e. till 30.11.2020 after taking note of the fact that the sanction was awaited under section 45(2) of the UAPA. The Police Report was submitted on 26.11.2020. The Respondent’s Default Bail application dated 11.11.2020 under Section 167 CrPC was rejected by the Trial Court.
- The Respondent then preferred a Petition u/s 482, CrPC against the order dated 11.09.2020 and 10.11.2020 which was allowed by the High Court, whereunder the High Court of Delhi granted default bail to the Respondent under Section 167(2), CrPC.
- The State of NCT of Delhi preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, assailing the correctness of order dated 11.02.2021.
Issues
- Whether the High Court erred in granting default bail to the Respondent particularly in the case when the period for completion of investigation was increased by the Trial Court vide its Order?
Held
- Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quash the order of High Court through which the accused was released on default bail. Court recorded that the application filed by the Public Prosecutor seeking extension of time for a further period of 30 days was well reasoned and the Trial Court committed no error in allowing the Application to extend the period till 30.11.2020. The Court further observed that the High Court failed to consider that charge sheet was submitted on 26.11.2020 i.e. within the extend period. The findings of the Court are as under:
- The Supreme Court noted that the High Court wrongly relied upon the judgment in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 602, which involved offences under TADA, while, the instant case was related to UAPA. Hence, the offences, the grounds for such applications and even the times lines are different under both such Laws.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Relevant Para No.
- 4, 5, 8, 10, and 13