Title: STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v RAJ KUMAR @ LOVEPREET
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NO.2503 OF 2021)
Dated on: 3.1.2024
Corum: HON’BLE JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH, J.
Facts of the case
In the present case between state of NCT Delhi (appellant) and Raj Kumar (Respondent), the respondent was faced a series of charges, which included offences under unlawful prevention and arms act due to which he was arrested immediately. The case stared off with respondent being held by police in custody for 3 days followed by a transfer to the judicial custody. Later the respondent was moved to Mandoli Jail, New Delhi where he was made to stay for 90 days during which investigation was allocated.
The period framed for investigation lapsed after 90 days due to which the investigating officers sought extension for a period of two months siting multifaceted reasons and the trial court grated the extension for the same However, the operative part of the order highlighted that the extension was primarily sought due to pending mandatory sanction from the GNCT (Government of National Capital Territory) Delhi. Aggrieved by this decision the respondent filed for a bail application in the trial court where it was rejected. Undeterred, the respondent filed an appeal in the high court where his appeal relying upon precedents.
The present case involves various legal provisions a from different statues which are Sections 13/18/20 from unlawful activates and prevention act (UAPA): These sections charge the respondent with a number of charges including conspiracy, engaging in illegal activity, and belonging to a terrorist group.
Section 43D(2)(b) of (UAPA): Given the circumstances of the case, this section is essential. It contains clauses that allow the investigation period to be extended past the deadline set by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The justifications for the extension of investigation.
Sections 45(1) and 45(2) deal with getting approval for a prosecution. The State highlights the necessity of obtaining the outstanding section 45(2) sanction from the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCT Delhi).
Section 167(2) (CrPc): The High Court granted default bail to the respondent in accordance with this section. When the inquiry is not finished in the allotted period, it deals with the accused person’s release. Section 482: The High Court granted default bail based on a petition filed by the respondent under this provision to set aside the orders pertaining to the extension of the investigation term.
Whether the extension of the period of investigation beyond 90 days was valid and justified under section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA?
Court analysis and judgement
In the present case the Hon’ble SC after reviewing the matter held that the extension was allowed for legitimate reasons in accordance with section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA and that the inquiry was finished within the extended term, setting aside the High Court’s ruling and restoring the Trial Court’s. in spite of providing several justifications for the request for an extension, including impending sanctions and an FSL report. The Supreme Court concludes that the High Court erred in relying on a TADA judgment, which had provisions that differed from those of the UAPA. The terrorist acts had an impact on both India and other countries, and the Supreme Court acknowledges the seriousness and magnitude of the offence and set aside the order of HC and allowed the appeal.
“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- Namitha Ramesh