Read Time: 09 minutes
Court said that the provisions of Section 167(2) of CrPC are not to be taken lightly as it has been laid down many times in various judgments by the Supreme Court as well as by the High Court.
A Delhi Court on Thursday granted default bail to a man accused in a National Investigation Agency (NIA) case in view of the delay in filing of the chargesheet.
The accused was arrested on October 18, 2022, and illegal weapons were recovered from him. The case is related to Arshdeep Singh Gill @ Dalla and others, who are allegedly hiding in Canada.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Shailender Malik of Patiala House Court granted bail to Asif Khan on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two surety of like amount. He was accused under Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 128B of the Indian Penal Code.
During the course of investigation, Asif Khan was arrested with an alleged recovery of (i) One Automatic Pistol along with 01 magazine (ii) 10 empty cartridges (iii) One Country made pistol along with its 10 live rounds (iv) One country made pistol along with its 09 live rounds (v) one country made pistol/desi Katta (vi) one Pistol body (vii) Magzine-03 (viii) Slide-02 (ix) Barrel-03 (x) But grip-11 (xi) Live rounds 7.62 25 mm-20 (xii) Live round KF-16 (xiii) Knife along with cover-01 etc, were seized from his house.
A bail application was filed on June 6 and notice was issued to the NIA.
Advocates Chirag Madan and Shivender Sharma appearing for Asif Khan argued that the accused was entitled to default bail in terms of S. 167 CrPC and further even on merits, the punishment prescribed for S.25 Arms Act r/w S.120-B IPC is 3 to 7 years.
“Admittedly chargesheet against the applicant has been filed on March 21 only for offences under Section 120B IPC and S. 25 of Arms Act, whereas investigation was completed after more than the 90 days period since when the accused was arrested,” the court said.
The ASJ also said, “Law expects that the investigations must be completed within the described period under Section 167(2) of the CrPC even under Section 43D(2) of UAPA, the period from 90 to 180 days cannot be extended as a routine”.
“So as at the stage of expiry of 60 or 90 days, investigation agency has the legal onus to check whether there is evidence to carry out investigation from 60 to 90 days as well as in cases of UAPA from 90 days to further time”, the ASJ said.
He added, “Going by the offences, the stated investigation for the offence against the accused ought to have been completed within 60 days of time from the time of his arrest”.
The judge said that one can understand that the accused has been arrested on the basis of recovery of Arms etc, for offences mentioned in the FIR in this case. “But at the same time, I am of the considered view that it is the legal responsibility of the Investigation Agency to ensure that if by the time of expiry of prescribed period of 60/90 days under Section 167(2) CrPC, no sufficient evidence has been collected for offences under UAPA, or for other offences for which investigation could carry out for more than 90 days, then the onus is on the Investigation Agency to chargesheet him within the period prescribed under Section 167(2) of CrPC”, he added.
Furthermore, the court said that the provisions of Section 167(2) of CrPC are not to be taken lightly as it has been laid down many times in various judgments by the Supreme Court as well as by the High Court.
NIA had taken over the investigation in pursuance of an FIR lodged by Special Cell Delhi Police wherein it was alleged that certain members of a criminal syndicate/gangs based in India & abroad, are plainnig to carry out terrorist acts in Delhi & other parts of the country.
As per NIA, they had conspired to recruit youths to commit terrorist acts in India with an intention to strike terror in the minds of people. These gang members along with their other associates were planning to carry out terror activities in Delhi and different parts of the country by executing targeted killings, using lethal Firearms and explosives.
The aforementioned terrorist gang leaders/members were using cyberspace and social media to publicize these crimes to create widespread terror amongst the public at large. Some of the gang leaders/members are operating from jail and others are absconding and operating from different parts of India and foreign countries, NIA alleged.
Case Title: NIA v. Arshdeep Singh & Ors.
Please Login or Register
