Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi High Court Order Granting Default Bail
In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court has recently overturned a Delhi High Court order granting default bail to an individual accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). This decision, handed down by the division bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, underscores the gravity of offences related to terrorist activities that not only have a nationwide impact but also affect other sovereign nations. Let’s delve into the background, analysis, and implications of this crucial legal maneuver.
Background of the Case
The legal saga began with a First Information Report (FIR) registered on June 16, 2020, against the accused. The charges included violations under Sections 13, 18, and 20 of the 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 accused, arrested on June 18, 2020, underwent both police and judicial custody, with the 90-day investigation period expiring on September 15, 2020.
As the deadline approached, the Public Prosecutor sought a 30-day extension for investigation, granted by the Trial Court until November 30, 2020. Subsequently, the police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was submitted on November 26, 2020. Dissatisfied with the proceedings, the accused filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the extension orders.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court, in setting aside the Delhi High Court’s order, scrutinized the legal aspects of the case. Referring to Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA, the Court emphasized that the extension for investigation can be granted for specific reasons, including the completion of the investigation, progress updates, and providing specific reasons for detention beyond 90 days.
Citing the precedent in the State of Maharashtra v. Surendra Pundlik Gadling, the Court highlighted the necessity of detention when awaiting forensic reports and ascertaining financial details in complex conspiracies spanning multiple cities. It criticized the High Court for relying on an outdated judgment and failing to consider the nuances of the UAPA.
Errors Identified by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court identified critical errors in the High Court’s decision. Firstly, it debunked the notion that sanctions were already received before the extension application in November 2020. The Court clarified that while the sanction under Section 45(1) of UAPA from the Ministry of Home Affairs was secured, other sanctions were pending, rendering the High Court’s finding incorrect.
Furthermore, the Court contested the High Court’s assertion that the application lacked a valid basis, emphasizing that the extension letter comprehensively detailed the progress of the investigation and reasons for detaining the accused. It highlighted the High Court’s oversight in not acknowledging the completed police report submitted before the extended period lapsed.
Nature of the Offence
Crucially, the Supreme Court emphasized the gravity of the offence involving terrorist activities with not only nationwide but also cross-border implications. It expressed dissatisfaction with the High Court’s seemingly lenient approach, stressing that such cases should not be taken lightly.
Conclusion: Upholding the Rule of Law
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to set aside the Delhi High Court’s order underscores the importance of meticulous legal scrutiny in cases with severe national and international ramifications. The judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath reiterates the significance of adhering to legal procedures and ensuring that investigations are thorough and complete.
