LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in granting default bail to the respondent by misinterpreting the provisions of Section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 concerning the extension of time for investigation.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
Case Name: State of NCT of Delhi vs. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely
[Judgment Date]: January 3, 2024
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: January 3, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 11
Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.
Can the investigation period for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) be extended beyond 90 days, and if so, under what conditions? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case involving alleged terrorist activities. The Court clarified the scope of Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA, which deals with the extension of time for investigation and the detention of accused individuals. This judgment has significant implications for how investigations under the UAPA are conducted and the rights of the accused. The bench comprised Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal.
Case Background
On June 16, 2020, a First Information Report (FIR) No. 154/2020 was registered at the Special Cell Police Station, New Delhi, against Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely (the respondent). The charges included offences under Sections 13, 18, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), Sections 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959. The respondent was arrested on June 18, 2020, and initially remanded to police custody for three days, followed by judicial custody at Mandoli Jail, New Delhi.
The initial 90-day period for investigation was set to expire on September 15, 2020. Upon the request of the Investigating Officer (IO), the Trial Court extended the investigation period by two months, until November 11, 2020. However, the investigation was not completed by this date, and no police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was filed.
Before the expiry of the extended period, the Public Prosecutor applied on November 7, 2020, for a further 30-day extension, citing the need for sanctions under Section 45(2) of the UAPA from the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD), pending Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) results of recovered arms, and sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act. The Trial Court granted this extension until November 30, 2020. The police report was eventually submitted on November 26, 2020. The respondent applied for bail under Section 167 of the CrPC on November 11, 2020, which was rejected by the Trial Court on November 17, 2020. The respondent then filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, which was allowed by the High Court, leading to the current appeal by the State of NCT of Delhi.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| June 16, 2020 | FIR No. 154/2020 registered against the respondent. |
| June 18, 2020 | Respondent arrested. |
| September 15, 2020 | Initial 90-day investigation period expired. |
| September 11, 2020 | Trial Court extended investigation period by two months (until November 11, 2020). |
| November 7, 2020 | Public Prosecutor applied for a further 30-day extension. |
| November 10, 2020 | Trial Court granted extension until November 30, 2020. |
| November 11, 2020 | Respondent applied for bail under Section 167 CrPC. |
| November 17, 2020 | Trial Court rejected the respondent’s bail application. |
| November 26, 2020 | Police report under Section 173(2) CrPC submitted. |
| February 11, 2021 | High Court granted default bail to the respondent. |
| January 3, 2024 | Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and upheld the extension of investigation time. |
Course of Proceedings
The respondent initially applied for bail under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which was rejected by the Trial Court on November 17, 2020. Aggrieved by this rejection, the respondent filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC to set aside the Trial Court’s orders dated September 11, 2020, and November 10, 2020. The High Court of Delhi allowed this petition, granting default bail to the respondent. The State of NCT of Delhi then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s order.
Legal Framework
The core legal issue revolves around Section 43D(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), which modifies the application of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in cases involving offences under the UAPA. Section 43D(2) states:
“43D. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law, every offence punishable under this Act shall be deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of clause (c) of section 2 of the Code, and “cognizable case” as defined in that clause shall be construed accordingly. (2) Section 167 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the modification that in sub-section (2), – (a) the references to “fifteen days”, “ninety days” and “sixty days”, wherever they occur, shall be construed as references to “thirty days”, “ninety days” and “ninety days” respectively; and (b) After the proviso, the following provisos shall be inserted, namely: – “Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Court may if it is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of ninety days, extend the said period up to one hundred and eighty days:”
This provision allows for the extension of the investigation period up to 180 days if the court is satisfied with the Public Prosecutor’s report, which must indicate the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for detaining the accused beyond 90 days.
Arguments
The State of NCT of Delhi, the appellant, argued that the High Court erred in granting default bail to the respondent. The State contended that the High Court incorrectly relied on the judgment in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602, which dealt with the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA), and not the UAPA. The State argued that Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA provides different grounds for extending the investigation period, including the progress of the investigation, specific reasons for detention beyond 90 days, and the need for sanctions.
The State submitted that the Public Prosecutor’s application dated November 7, 2020, clearly outlined the reasons for seeking an extension, including the awaited sanctions under Section 45(2) of the UAPA from GNCTD, the pending FSL results, and the required sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act. The State also argued that the High Court incorrectly concluded that the sanction under Section 45(2) of the UAPA had already been received before the application for extension was made.
The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the extension of the investigation period was not justified as the reasons provided were not valid. The respondent contended that the Trial Court granted the extension primarily on the ground of obtaining mandatory sanction which was still pending before the GNCT Delhi, whereas in reality, the sanction had already been received. The respondent relied upon the judgment in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602 to argue that extension of investigation cannot be granted in a casual manner.
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| State of NCT of Delhi (Appellant) |
|
| Raj Kumar (Respondent) |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue can be summarized as follows:
- Whether the High Court was correct in granting default bail to the respondent by misinterpreting the provisions of Section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 concerning the extension of time for investigation.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in granting default bail to the respondent by misinterpreting the provisions of Section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 concerning the extension of time for investigation. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court was incorrect in granting default bail. | The High Court misapplied the precedent in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur, which related to TADA, not UAPA. The Supreme Court held that Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA allows extensions for reasons beyond just completing investigation, and the Public Prosecutor’s application clearly stated reasons for extension, including pending sanctions and FSL reports. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602 | Supreme Court of India | Overruled, distinguished | The High Court relied on this case, which dealt with TADA, but the Supreme Court distinguished it, stating that the provisions of UAPA are different. |
| State of Maharashtra vs. Surendra Pundlik Gadling (2019) 5 SCC 178 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | The Court followed this case, which interpreted Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA, and held that the extension could be granted for reasons including completion of investigation, progress in the investigation, and specific reasons for detention. |
| Section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 | Statute | Interpreted | The Court interpreted this provision to allow extensions of investigation time up to 180 days, subject to conditions. |
| Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Statute | Modified | The Court noted that Section 43D(2) of UAPA modifies the application of Section 167 of CrPC. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order granting default bail to the respondent. The Court held that the High Court erred in relying on Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602, a case related to TADA, which has different provisions compared to UAPA.
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| The State’s submission that the High Court misapplied the precedent in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and that Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA allows extensions for reasons beyond just completing investigation. | The Court accepted this submission. |
| The State’s submission that the Public Prosecutor’s application clearly stated reasons for extension, including pending sanctions and FSL reports. | The Court accepted this submission. |
| The State’s submission that the High Court incorrectly stated that sanction under Section 45(2) of UAPA was already received. | The Court accepted this submission. |
| The Respondent’s submission that the extension of investigation was not justified. | The Court rejected this submission. |
| The Respondent’s submission that the Trial Court granted extension on the ground that mandatory sanction was pending, whereas it had already been received. | The Court rejected this submission. |
| The Respondent’s submission that extension of investigation cannot be granted casually. | The Court rejected this submission. |
The Court emphasized that the High Court failed to consider the reasons given in the extension letter dated November 7, 2020, which detailed the progress of the investigation and the reasons for detaining the respondent. The Court also noted that the police report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC had been submitted before the expiry of the extended period.
The Supreme Court referenced State of Maharashtra vs. Surendra Pundlik Gadling (2019) 5 SCC 178, which clarified that under Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA, the extension for investigation could be granted up to 180 days for reasons such as completion of the investigation, progress in the investigation, and specific reasons for detention beyond 90 days.
The Court made the following observations on the authorities:
- Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602: The High Court incorrectly relied on this case, which pertained to TADA and not UAPA. The Supreme Court distinguished it, stating that the provisions of UAPA are different.
- State of Maharashtra vs. Surendra Pundlik Gadling (2019) 5 SCC 178: The Court followed this case, which interpreted Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA, and held that the extension could be granted for reasons including completion of investigation, progress in the investigation, and specific reasons for detention.
The Court highlighted the seriousness of the offences, which involved terrorist activities with a potential impact on national and international security.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that investigations under the UAPA are not hampered by procedural technicalities, especially when dealing with serious offences like terrorism. The Court emphasized the importance of considering the specific provisions of Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA, which allows for extensions of investigation time under certain circumstances. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the High Court had misapplied the precedent in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and had incorrectly concluded that the sanction under Section 45(2) of the UAPA was already received before the application for extension was made.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Importance of UAPA Provisions | 30% |
| Misapplication of Precedent | 25% |
| Seriousness of Offences | 25% |
| Procedural Compliance | 20% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the interpretation of the law (70%), specifically Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA, and the need to correctly apply legal precedents. The factual aspects (30%) of the case, such as the pending sanctions and FSL reports, were also considered but were secondary to the legal analysis.
The Court considered and rejected the High Court’s interpretation of the law, emphasizing the specific provisions of the UAPA. The Court also rejected the argument that the extension was not justified, highlighting that the Public Prosecutor had provided valid reasons for the extension.
The Court’s decision was based on a careful analysis of the legal provisions and the specific facts of the case. The Court emphasized that the High Court had failed to consider the specific provisions of the UAPA and had misapplied the precedent set in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur. The Court also highlighted the need to ensure that investigations into serious offences are not hampered by procedural technicalities.
The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Vikram Nath, with Justice Rajesh Bindal concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.
“The High Court also fell in error in not taking into consideration the reasons given under section 43D(2) (b) were clearly made out and explained in the extension letter dated 07.11.2020 giving the details of the progress of the investigation as also the r easons for detaining the respondent.”
“The High Court also committed an error in recording a finding that sanction had already been received prior to the date of making the application for extension in November 2020. The recording of the said fact is not correct.”
“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.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court clarified that the provisions of Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA allow for the extension of the investigation period up to 180 days, provided that the Public Prosecutor submits a report indicating the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond 90 days.
- The Court emphasized that the reasons for seeking an extension can include the need for sanctions, pending FSL reports, and other valid reasons related to the investigation, not just the completion of the investigation.
- The judgment underscores the importance of correctly applying legal precedents and considering the specific provisions of the relevant laws, especially in cases involving serious offences like terrorism.
- The judgment highlights that the High Court should not interfere with the extension of investigation period unless there are valid reasons to do so.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the respondent be taken into custody forthwith, if not already in custody.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that the High Court erred in granting default bail to the respondent by misinterpreting the provisions of Section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 concerning the extension of time for investigation. The Supreme Court clarified that the provisions of Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA allow for the extension of the investigation period up to 180 days, provided that the Public Prosecutor submits a report indicating the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond 90 days. This judgment clarifies the scope of Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA and sets aside the High Court’s interpretation.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of NCT of Delhi vs. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely clarifies the scope of Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA regarding the extension of investigation periods. The Court emphasized that extensions can be granted for reasons beyond just completing the investigation, including the need for sanctions and FSL reports. This decision underscores the importance of correctly applying legal precedents and considering specific statutory provisions, especially in cases involving serious offences like terrorism. The Supreme Court has set aside the High Court’s order granting default bail and has upheld the extension of the investigation period.