SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN DEFAULT BAIL, UPHOLDS LEGITIMACY OF INVESTIGATION EXTENSION
TITLE: STATE OF NCT OF DELHI V. RAJ KUMAR @ LOVEPREET @LOVELY
CITATION: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO…………………OF 2024 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.2503 OF 2021)
DECIDED ON: 3 JANUARY 2024
CORAM: JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH, JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Facts of the Case
The respondent, Raj Kumar Lovepreet, Lovely, was granted default bail by the High Court, an order that was appealed by the State of the NCT of Delhi. The case started with the filing of FIR No.154 of 2020 on June 16, 2020. It involved accusations made under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Arms Act of 1959, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967. After being taken into custody by the police on June 18, 2020, the respondent was later placed in judicial custody. The 90-day investigation period ended on September 15, 2020, and was extended to November 30, 2020, with justifications including impending sanctions and unresolved forensic issues. On November 11, 2020, the respondent filed for bail; however, the High Court denied it, and the State appealed.
Issues Involved
Whether the High Court erred in granting default bail to the respondent. Whether the reasons for the extension of the investigation period under section 43D (2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were valid.
Legal Provisions
Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 43D (2) (b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Court’s Observation and Analysis
Examining the High Court’s ruling closely, the Supreme Court emphasised the error of relying too much on a TADA-related ruling and emphasised the differences between TADA and the current case, which is subject to UAPA. The UAPA’s section 43D(2)(b)—which permits an investigation to be extended for a maximum of 180 days with particular justifications—was emphasised by the court. It clarified that the extension was requested for pending sanctions and forensic reports, noting that the High Court erred in concluding that sanctions had already been received. The court rejected the High Court’s inadequate consideration of the grounds for detention and the prompt submission of the police report in accordance with section 173(2) CrPC, finding that the offence involving terrorist activity was of a serious nature. In light of the seriousness of the offence and the legitimacy of the justifications for the investigation’s extension, the Supreme Court granted the appeal, overturning the High Court’s decision and ordering the respondent to be placed under immediate custody if they were not already under custody.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Komal Goswami