Case Title – State of NCT of Delhi vs. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely
Case No. – SLP(CRL.) No. 2503 of 2021
Dated on – 3rd January, 2024
Quorum – Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal
Facts of the Case –
First Information Report (FIR No. 154 of 2020) was registered on June 16, 2020, at the Special Cell, New Delhi, against Raj Kumar for offenses under Sections 13, 18, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA); Sections 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC); and Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959. Raj Kumar was arrested on June 18, 2020, and was initially remanded to police custody for three days, followed by judicial custody, and has since been held in Mandoli Jail, New Delhi. The initial 90-day period for investigation expired on September 15, 2020. Before this period ended, the Investigating Officer (IO) obtained an order on September 11, 2020, extending the investigation period by two months until November 11, 2020. As the investigation was incomplete by this date, and no police report under Section 173(2) of CrPC, 1973 was filed, another extension was sought by the Public Prosecutor on November 7, 2020, for an additional 30 days under Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA, citing pending sanctions and awaited forensic reports. This extension was granted by the trial court on November 10, 2020, extending the investigation period until November 30, 2020. The investigation was completed, and a police report was filed on November 26, 2020. Raj Kumar filed for bail under Section 167 CrPC on November 11, 2020, which the trial court rejected on November 17, 2020. He then approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, which set aside the orders of September 11, 2020, and November 10, 2020, and granted him default bail. The State of NCT of Delhi appealed this decision before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Legal Provisions –
- Section 173(2) of CrPC, 1973
- Section 45 of UAPA, 1967
Contentions of the Appellant –
The appellant, State of NCT of Delhi, contended that the High Court erred in granting default bail to the respondent, Raj Kumar, by incorrectly applying the legal principles and precedents. The appellant argued that the High Court improperly relied on the judgment in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, which pertains to the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA), rather than the applicable provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The appellant emphasized that the provisions under Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA allow for extensions of the investigation period beyond 90 days, up to a maximum of 180 days, if certain conditions are met. These conditions include demonstrating the progress of the investigation, providing specific reasons for the necessity of detention beyond 90 days, and completing the investigation. The appellant maintained that these conditions were adequately met and detailed in the application for extension, which was supported by the Public Prosecutor’s report. Additionally, the appellant contended that the High Court erroneously found that the necessary sanctions had already been obtained before the application for extension was filed, when in fact, some sanctions were still pending. The appellant also highlighted that the seriousness of the offenses involving terrorism and their extensive implications necessitated a thorough investigation, which justified the extensions granted by the trial court. The appellant concluded that the High Court’s decision to grant default bail was based on incorrect factual and legal premises, warranting its reversal by the Supreme Court.
Contentions of the Respondent –
The respondents contended that his right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), was violated due to the prosecution’s failure to complete the investigation within the prescribed period of 90 days. He argued that the extensions granted by the trial court were not justified as they were based on insufficient and invalid grounds. The respondent asserted that the necessary sanctions required for the investigation under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), were already obtained prior to the prosecution’s request for additional time. Thus, there was no valid reason for the extension of the investigation period. Furthermore, the respondent relied on the precedent set in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, arguing that extensions under such special legislations should be granted only for valid reasons explicitly mentioned in the statute, which, according to him, were not present in his case. He also claimed that the delay in obtaining forensic reports and other administrative reasons cited by the prosecution did not constitute valid grounds for extension under Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA. The respondent maintained that the High Court correctly interpreted the legal provisions and found that his detention beyond the initial 90-day period was unlawful, thus entitling him to default bail. Therefore, he contended that the High Court’s order should be upheld, and the appeal by the State of NCT of Delhi should be dismissed.
Court Analysis and Judgement –
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, upon hearing the contentions of both parties, analysed the relevant legal provisions and precedents to determine the correctness of the High Court’s decision to grant default bail to the respondent. The Court noted that the High Court had erroneously relied on the judgment in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, which pertained to the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA), and was not directly applicable to the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The Court clarified that Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA permits extensions of the investigation period up to 180 days if specific conditions are met, including demonstrating the progress of the investigation and providing specific reasons for the necessity of detention beyond 90 days. The Supreme Court found that the Public Prosecutor’s application for extension, dated November 7, 2020, was supported by valid reasons, including pending sanctions under Section 45(2) of UAPA and the awaited forensic report. These reasons were adequately explained and justified the need for further investigation time. The Court further observed that the investigation had been completed, and the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC was filed within the extended period, prior to November 30, 2020. The Court also addressed the High Court’s incorrect factual finding that all necessary sanctions had been obtained before the extension request, clarifying that some sanctions were still pending at the time. Additionally, the Supreme Court emphasized the seriousness of the offenses, involving terrorism with implications beyond national borders, underscoring the necessity for a thorough investigation. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed an error in granting default bail to the respondent based on incorrect legal and factual premises. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and directed that the respondent be taken into custody if not already detained.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Anurag Das
