The Supreme Court recently set aside a Delhi High Court order allowing default bail to a man alleged to have Pakistani terrorist links under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The court pointed out that the police had already filed the charge sheet prior to the extended time granted to the investigators.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal allowed the appeal and directed that the respondent Raj Kumar (alias Lovepreet alias Lovely) be taken into custody forthwith if he isn’t already.
“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,” the bench said.
The division bench also said that the High Court had failed to consider the apex court’s judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra vs Surendra Pundlik Gadling and others (2019) related to extension of time for filing charge sheet but had relied upon the judgment in case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others vs The State of Maharashtra and Others (1994) relating to provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.
The SC noted that during the course of the investigation, a person named Gurtej Singh had been arrested who had links with Pakistan-based terrorists and had been planning to go to that country for weapons training along with his associate respondent Rajkumar alias Lovely and others.
The bench noted the High Court also committed an error in recording that the sanction was already obtained before filing of the application in November 2020 for an extension of time to file the charge sheet, saying that this is not correct as the public prosecutor had clearly mentioned that the sanction under section 45(1) of UAPA had been received 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 were received.
“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,” the bench said.
The court also pointed out under section 43 D(2)(b) of the UAPA, the extension for investigation could be granted up to a maximum period of 180 days for reasons, i.e., completion of the investigation; progress in the investigation was explained; and specific reasons for detention beyond a period of 90 days.
Comments
0 comment