Read Time: 08 minutes
“The matter is serious in nature and though some time has already been consumed, it cannot be said that the Prosecution has not achieved any progress. The orders of the Trial Court may appear to be stereotypical and extremely technical despite the fact that the report of the ld. Additional Public Prosecutor does show progress from time to time”, the court emphasized while granting an extension.
The Delhi High Court, recently, granted an extension to the Police to investigate the Al Qaeda in Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) training module case noting that, “Cases like the present one, involving national security especially, where there has been substantial evidence collected already which includes recovery of dangerous weapons, evidence of weapon training cannot be brushed aside”.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma observed that the investigation of the case spanned multiple states, necessitating more time due to the complexity and seriousness of the matter.
The Police approached the High Court challenging the impugned order of the trial court whereby an application seeking an extension of time was rejected. The trial court determined that there was no sufficient justification for granting further custody of the accused individuals.
The investigation was initiated based on confidential inputs received by the Special Cell, suggesting that a highly radicalized group from Jharkhand, along with sympathizers in and around Delhi, were conspiring and planning a terror attack. In August 2024, multiple raids were conducted across Rajasthan, Jharkhand, and Uttar Pradesh as part of the investigation. It was revealed that seven individuals had received weapons training in Rajasthan, of whom six were apprehended, and various weapons were recovered. Additionally, during the raids in Ranchi, Jharkhand, five individuals were arrested, and a handmade SLR, a handmade carbine, and some cash were seized.
The State, through Additional Public Prosecutor Laksh Khanna, submitted that an analysis of the accused persons' mobile phones and materials recovered during the raids necessitated the addition of Sections 16, 17, and 18 of the UAPA, given the perceived threat to national security and sovereignty.
The high court framed the following issues for consideration: “I. Whether an order rejecting remand of the accused is an interlocutory order under Section 21 of the NIA Act and hence not appealable? II. Whether the application seeking extension of time for completion of investigation under Section 43D(2) of UAPA deserves to be allowed and if so, for what period?”
The court noted that the maximum investigation period extends from 90 to 180 days. This extension required a report from the Public Prosecutor outlining the investigation's progress and justifying the need for continued detention beyond 90 days. The court, based on valid material, had to be satisfied with the necessity for such an extension. Failure to secure this extension entitled the accused to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. Similarly, rejecting an extension application under Section 43D(2) led to default bail for the accused, the court highlighted.
The court further emphasized that in cases involving UAPA, rejecting an application to extend the investigation period from 90 to 180 days could lead to irreversible consequences. Such orders allowed the accused to secure default bail without stringent conditions, potentially undermining the investigation or affecting societal security.
“Any order which can have such irreversible consequences in a case of such magnitude and sensitivity cannot be held to be an interlocutory order”, the court highlighted. Therefore, such orders were deemed appealable and not interlocutory. Thus, the court held that the appeal was maintainable.
Regarding the second issue, the court observed that the case involved an application by the State seeking an extension based on multiple grounds, including the need to uncover the conspiracy, analyze extensive digital data, interrogate the accused, trace weapons, and apprehend associates. The report of the Additional Public Prosecutor highlighted substantial progress, such as recovering arms and ammunition, recording witness statements, and identifying new leads.
Despite some technical shortcomings in trial court orders, the court found the State's justification for the extension credible and progress satisfactory.
For State: Additional Public Prosecutor Laksh Khanna, Special Public Prosecutors Diksha Suri, Deepshikha Kaur Anand and Akhand Pratap Singh with Advocates Samridhi Dobhal, Krishna Mohammed Chandel and Abhinandan GautamFor Respondents: Advocates Jawahar Raja, Anushka Baruah, Abu Bakar Sabbaq, Mohd. Faiz Ansard and Kartik MurukutlaCase Title: State v Anamul Ansari (2024:DHC:9588-DB)
Please Login or Register
