Supreme Court clarifies bail and investigation powers in UAPA cases: Pradeep Ram vs. State of Jharkhand (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: July 01, 2019

Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO S. 816-817 OF 2019 (arising out of SLP(CRL.) No s.10051-10052 of 2018)

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J. and K.M. Joseph, J.

Can an accused, already on bail, be re-arrested if new, more serious charges are added to their case? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Pradeep Ram vs. The State of Jharkhand. This judgment clarifies the procedures for arrest and investigation when new offenses, particularly those under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), are added after an initial bail grant. The bench, comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph, delivered a unanimous decision.

Case Background

The case began with a First Information Report (FIR) registered on January 11, 2016, at the Tandwa Police Station, Jharkhand. The FIR, numbered 02/2016, initially charged Pradeep Ram and others with offenses under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with sections of the Arms Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The allegations were that the accused were extorting money from contractors, transporters, and coal businessmen by creating fear using the name of extremist groups.

During a search of Pradeep Ram’s house, authorities recovered ₹57,57,510 and four mobile phones. Ram was arrested but later granted bail by the High Court on March 10, 2016. A charge sheet was submitted on the same day, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offenses on March 11, 2016. Charges were framed against Ram on September 19, 2016.

Subsequently, on April 9, 2017, offenses under Sections 16, 17, 20, and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) were added to the case. The Central Government, on February 13, 2018, directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to take over the investigation. The NIA re-registered the FIR as RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI on February 16, 2018. Pradeep Ram, already in custody for another case, was produced before the Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi, on June 25, 2018, and remanded to judicial custody.

Pradeep Ram then filed a writ petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings and the remand order, which was dismissed by the High Court. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant, Pradeep Ram, initially sought to quash the criminal proceedings and the order of cognizance from the High Court of Jharkhand under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The High Court had stayed the proceedings in the initial case. However, after the addition of UAPA charges and the NIA taking over the investigation, Ram filed another writ petition to quash the NIA case and the remand order. The High Court dismissed both petitions, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. Key provisions include:

• Section 167 of the CrPC: This section deals with the procedure when an investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours. It allows a Magistrate to authorize detention of the accused in custody.
  
  (1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty -four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well – founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not be low the rank of sub- inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.
  
  (2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has no jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having suc h jurisdiction…
• Section 309 of the CrPC: This section grants the court the power to postpone or adjourn proceedings and remand the accused if in custody.
  
  (2) If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody…
• Section 437(5) of the CrPC: This section empowers a court to arrest and commit to custody a person who has been released on bail.
  
  (5) Any Court which has released a person on bail under sub – section (1) or sub – section (2), may, if it considers i t necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to custody.
• Section 439(2) of the CrPC: This section empowers the High Court or Court of Session to direct the arrest and committal to custody of a person released on bail.
  
  (2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody.
• Section 6 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008: This section outlines the procedure for the investigation of scheduled offenses by the NIA. It allows the Central Government to direct the NIA to investigate specific cases.
  
  (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, if the Central Government is of the opinion that a Scheduled Offence has been committed which is required to be investigated under this Act, it may, suo motu, direct the Agency to investigate the said offence.
  
  (6) Where any direction has been given under sub-section (4) or sub -section (5), the State Government and any police officer of the State Government investigating the offence shall not proceed with the investigation and shall forthwith tra nsmit the relevant documents and records to the Agency.
• Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008: This section empowers the NIA to investigate connected offenses.
  
  While investigating any Scheduled Offence, the Agency may also investigate any other offence which the accused is alleged to have committed if the offence is connected with the Scheduled Offence.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that since the initial investigation was completed and a charge sheet was submitted on March 10, 2016, the NIA could not register a second FIR on February 16, 2018.
• It was contended that the Special Judge erred in remanding the appellant to judicial custody under Section 167 of the CrPC. Once cognizance was taken on March 11, 2016, any remand order should have been under Section 309 of the CrPC.
• The appellant argued that the NIA could not conduct a re-investigation into the offenses already covered in the initial FIR.
• The appellant, having been granted bail on March 10, 2016, could not be re-arrested due to the addition of new offenses under the UAPA. The NIA should have applied for cancellation of the existing bail before re-arresting him.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent contended that the NIA did not register a second FIR but re-registered the existing FIR as per the NIA Act.
• The respondent argued that submitting a charge sheet and taking cognizance did not prevent the NIA from conducting further investigation and submitting a supplementary report.
• The respondent submitted that under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, the investigating agency can conduct further investigation and submit supplementary reports.
• The respondent contended that when scheduled offenses under the UAPA were added, the NIA was required to investigate the case as per the Central Government’s order.
• The respondent argued that the bail granted on March 10, 2016, did not apply to the newly added UAPA offenses, and the appellant had to apply for fresh bail.
• The respondent submitted that the Special Judge rightly remanded the appellant under Section 167 of the CrPC during further investigation by the NIA.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether, in a case where an accused has been bailed out, and new offenses are added, is it necessary to cancel the earlier bail to take the accused into custody?
2. Whether the re-registration of FIR No. RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI is a second FIR and not permissible, given the existence of FIR No. 02/2016?
3. Whether the NIA could conduct further investigation when the investigation in P.S. Case No. 02/2016 had been completed, and a charge sheet was submitted?
4. Whether the remand order dated June 25, 2018, passed by the Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi, was in accordance with the law?
5. Whether the power under Section 167 of the CrPC could be exercised in this case, or could the accused only be remanded under Section 309(2) of the CrPC?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered various legal authorities to reach its decision, categorized by the legal points they addressed:

On the issue of whether bail needs to be canceled before re-arrest:

• Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi and Another, (2001) 4 SCC 280 – Supreme Court of India: Held that with a change in the nature of the offense, the accused becomes disentitled to the liberty granted for a minor offense.
• Hamida Vs. Rashid alias Rasheed and Others, (2008) 1 SCC 474 – Supreme Court of India: Held that an accused, after the addition of a serious non-cognizable offense, is required to surrender and apply for bail for the newly added offenses.
• Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel and others vs. State of Gujarat, (2009) 6 SCC 332 – Supreme Court of India: Observed that accused who have been granted bail and are not in custody could not be taken in custody ordinarily unless their bail was not cancelled.
• Sita Ram Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (2) BLJR 859 – Patna High Court: Held that on a serious change in the nature of the offense, the accused becomes disentitled to the liberty granted to him in relation to a minor offense.
• Sukhpal Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1988 (1) RLW 283 – Rajasthan High Court: Held that police cannot arrest an accused on bail by merely adding a non-bailable section. The police must seek an order from the Court for cancellation of bail.
• Dhivian Vs. State, (2010) 2 MWN (Cr.) – Madras High Court: Held that bail granted earlier shall not automatically stand cancelled by the addition of a serious non-bailable offense.
• Bijendra and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., (2006) CriLJ 2253 – Allahabad High Court: Held that on addition of a new offense, the accused is required to appear before the court and seek bail.
• Bankey Lal Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., (2008) CriLJ 3779 – Allahabad High Court: Held that the applicant should be required to obtain fresh bail under the newly added section.
• CRMC No.270/2018 – Fayaz Ahmad Khan and Ors. Vs. State – Jammu & Kashmir High Court: Held that bail granted earlier shall not automatically stand cancelled by the addition of a serious non-bailable offense.
• Manoj Suresh Jadhav & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra – Supreme Court of India: Held that it is not permissible for the State to simply re-arrest the petitioners by ignoring the earlier bail order.

On the issue of whether a second FIR can be registered:

• T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Others, (2001) 6 SCC 181 – Supreme Court of India: Held that there can be no second FIR for the same offense.
• Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2010) 12 SCC 254 – Supreme Court of India: Reiterated the principle that a second FIR for the same offense is not permissible.
• Chirra Shivraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 14 SCC 444 – Supreme Court of India: Reaffirmed that there can be no second FIR for the same offense.
• Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., (2013) 6 SCC 348 – Supreme Court of India: Held that a second FIR in respect of an offense or different offenses committed in the course of the same transaction is not permissible.

On the issue of further investigation:

• Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 762 – Supreme Court of India: Held that the investigating agency has wide power to conduct further investigation even after filing a report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC.
• Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel and Others, (2017) 4 SCC 177 – Supreme Court of India: Reiterated that police can conduct further investigation and submit a supplementary report.

On the issue of remand under Section 167 vs 309 of the CrPC:

• Gouri Shankar Jha vs. State of Bihar and others, 1972 (1) SCC 564 – Supreme Court of India: Explained the difference between Sections 167 and 344 of the old CrPC (equivalent to Section 309 of the new CrPC).
• Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell -I, New Delhi Vs. Anupam J. Kulkarni, (1992) 3 SCC 141 – Supreme Court of India: Held that Section 309 comes into operation after taking cognizance and not during the period of investigation.
• State through CBI Vs. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar and Others, (2000) 10 SCC 438 – Supreme Court of India: Held that Section 309(2) does not apply to an accused who is subsequently arrested during further investigation.
• Dinesh Dalmia Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2007) 8 SCC 770 – Supreme Court of India: Held that Section 167(2) applies before cognizance, and Section 309(2) applies after cognizance.
• Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel and Others Vs. State of Gujarat, (2009) 6 SCC 332 – Supreme Court of India: Held that once the charge sheet is filed and cognizance is taken, the power of remand can only be exercised under Section 309(2) of the CrPC.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi and Another, (2001) 4 SCC 280*: The Court relied on this case to support the view that when the nature of the offense changes, the accused’s entitlement to liberty also changes.
• Hamida Vs. Rashid alias Rasheed and Others, (2008) 1 SCC 474*: The Court cited this case to affirm that an accused must surrender and apply for fresh bail when serious non-cognizable offenses are added.
• Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel and others vs. State of Gujarat, (2009) 6 SCC 332*: The Court noted this case’s observation that an accused on bail cannot be taken into custody unless the bail is cancelled, but clarified that this is not a mandatory requirement in all cases.
• T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Others, (2001) 6 SCC 181*: The Court acknowledged this case’s principle that a second FIR for the same offense is not permissible, but distinguished it from the present case.
• Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 762*: The Court used this case to support the view that investigating agencies can conduct further investigation and submit supplementary reports.
• State through CBI Vs. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar and Others, (2000) 10 SCC 438*: The Court used this case to clarify that Section 309(2) does not apply to an accused who is subsequently arrested during further investigation but distinguished it from the present facts.
• Dinesh Dalmia Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2007) 8 SCC 770*: The Court relied on this case to differentiate between the application of Section 167 and 309 of the CrPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily driven by the need to balance the rights of the accused with the need for effective investigation and prosecution of serious offenses, particularly those under the UAPA. The Court emphasized the procedural aspects of the NIA Act and the CrPC to ensure that the process is followed correctly, and the accused’s rights are protected while allowing for thorough investigation of serious crimes. The Court also sought to clarify the confusion regarding the applicability of Sections 167 and 309 of the CrPC, ensuring that the correct procedures are followed in remanding accused persons.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Pradeep Ram vs. State of Jharkhand provides significant clarification on the procedures when new offenses, particularly under the UAPA, are added to a case where the accused is already on bail. The Court held that while a formal cancellation of bail may not always be necessary, the accused must seek fresh bail for the newly added serious offenses. The Court also clarified that the re-registration of an FIR by the NIA is not a second FIR but a procedural requirement under the NIA Act. Furthermore, the NIA is empowered to conduct further investigations and submit supplementary reports even after the initial charge sheet is filed. The Court also clarified the applicability of Section 167 and 309 of the CrPC, emphasizing that Section 309(2) should be used for remanding an accused who is already in custody after cognizance has been taken.

This judgment ensures that the investigation of serious crimes, especially those under the UAPA, is not hampered by procedural technicalities while also safeguarding the rights of the accused. The Court’s emphasis on the correct application of legal provisions ensures a balanced approach to criminal justice administration.