Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on January 3, 2024 set aside the Delhi High Court's order allowing default bail to an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, saying the police had already filed the charge sheet prior to 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 not in custody.

"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 court also noted during the course of investigation, one Gurtej Singh had been arrested who had links with Pakistan based terrorists and had been planning to go to Pakistan 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 extension of time to file the charge sheet, saying the said fact 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 was 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.

The bench also said the High Court also 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 Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.

 

Cause Title: State of NCT of Delhi Vs Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely