A petition for default bail filed by an accused of having ties to banned terrorist organizations was recently dismissed by the Karnataka High Court. The applicant is accused of participating in a criminal conspiracy to radicalize and recruit gullible Muslim youths to join the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (‘ISIS’).
“I do not find any error or reason rendered by the Investigating Officer as put forth by the SPP to be contrary to Section 43D (2) of the Act,” said a single judge bench led by Honourable Justice M Nagaprasanna in rejecting the plea filed by Zuhab Hameed Shakeel Manna @ Zohib Manna in the case of Zuhab Hameed Shakeel Manna @ Zohib Manna v. The National Investigation Agency (Writ Petition No.5913 of 2022).
Based on the facts of the case, the petitioner is charged under Sections 120B and 125 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 17, 18, and 18B of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. He claims to be working in Saudi Arabia and living there with his family to support themselves.
On the request of the National Investigating Agency, the petitioner was taken into custody in Saudi Arabia on 05-10-2020, about 13 months before his deportation to India. On November 14, 2021, the petitioner’s family was completely evacuated from Saudi Arabia and deported to India.
When he arrived, he was charged with the aforementioned offenses. The petitioner was accused of having ties to banned terrorist organizations and engaging in criminal conspiracy to radicalize and recruit gullible Muslim youths to join the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (‘ISIS’). He also travelled to raise funds and facilitate ISIS travel to the conflict zone in Syria.
The petitioner is currently detained by the courts. The Investigating Officer submits a report to the Special Public Prosecutor (‘SPP’ for short) after the petitioner has been in judicial custody for 90 days, requesting that the petitioner’s custody be extended from 90 to 180 days. The petitioner filed his objections to the extension on the grounds that there was no warrant to extend his judicial custody because no charge sheet had been filed within the required 90 days, and he also filed an application for his release on bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.
The Special Court, in an order dated 14-02-2022, increased the petitioner’s judicial custody from 90 to 180 days and, as a result, denied the petitioner’s application for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. He then proceeded to the high Court.
The petitioner’s lawyer, P.Usman, argued that the order of judicial custody extension does not reflect the application of mind required by Section 43 of the Act, because the custody is extended mechanically without the SPP considering the Investigating Officer’s report. He would argue that the order of extension is void due to the petitioner’s failure to apply his mind, and that the petitioner is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.
The bench referred to the Special Public Prosecutor’s report, which requested an extension of the investigation period and judicial custody of the accused. It said, “The Investigating Officer contends that during the detention interrogation, a larger conspiracy emerges, and the petitioner will be required for further interrogation in order to uncover this larger conspiracy. As a result, an application is filed to extend judicial custody from 90 to 180 days, as allowed under Section 43D(2)(b) of the Act.”
“The Court, hearing the application for judicial custody extension, passed a detailed order allowing the application and extending the petitioner’s custody from 90 days to 180 days,” it continued. “As a result, the petitioner’s application for default bail was denied by a separate order dated 24.02.2022 again giving detailed reasons,” it continued.
Following that, it remained stable “The petitioner’s learned counsel’s claim that the orders suffer from a lack of mental application is unacceptably false. The order extracted (supra) contains the SPP’s detailed reasons for filing an application to extract the contents of the Investigating Officer’s report. As a result, the report or opinion of the Investigating Officer or the SPP does not suffer from a lack of application of mind.”
The court also dismissed the petitioner’s argument that Section 43D(2), which states that if the investigation cannot be completed within 90 days, the Court may, if it is satisfied that the Public Prosecutor’s report indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the accused’s detention beyond the 90-day period, extend the judicial custody from 90 to 180 days.
“The emphasis of the learned counsel’s submission is on the phrase “if it is not possible to complete,” the bench observed.
The lawyer argued that the phrase should be interpreted to show why the investigating officer was unable to complete the investigation in 90 days.
The Court, however, stated, “This submission is only to be noted and rejected, as the SPP’s report and application clearly outline the progress of the investigation and the need for the petitioner to remain in judicial custody for further interrogation. I do not believe the Investigating Officer’s error or reason, as stated by the SPP, is in violation of Section 43D(2) of the Act.”
“In light of the afore-quoted statute, the Apex Court’s judgments interpreting Section 43D(2)(b) of the Act, the report of the Investigating Officer, the application of the SPP, and the order of extension of judicial custody, what would unmistakably emerge is that the report of the Investigating Officer, as is the application filed by the SPP, is in consonance with the provisions of the Act,” the court concluded.
