SC sets aside Delhi HC order granting default bail to UAPA accused
New Delhi: The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court order allowing default bail to an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and said a case involving terrorist activities with pan-India implications should not be taken lightly. Needed
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal ordered the immediate custody of Raj Kumar alias Lovepreet alias Lovely after finding that the police had filed the charge sheet before the extended time given for the purpose. .
The court also said that during the investigation, a person named Gurtej Singh was arrested, who had links with Pakistan-based terrorists and was planning to go to Pakistan for arms-training along with his co-defendant Rajkumar alias Lovely and others. .
The bench said, “Another aspect that must be considered is the nature of the offense which involved terrorist activities which had ramifications not only across India but also on other enemy states. The matter should not be taken so lightly Was.”
The Delhi government filed an appeal against the High Court order dated February 11, 2021, granting default bail to the accused under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The court also noted that under Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA, an extension of a maximum period of 180 days can be granted for investigation for specific reasons.
The High Court failed to consider the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case ‘State of Maharashtra vs. Surendra Pundalik Gadling and others’ (2019) relating to extension of time for filing charge sheet, but relied on the judgment in the case of ‘Hitendra Vishnu Thakur’ did. And Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (1994) deals with the provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, the bench said.
The bench said that the High Court had also erred in recording that approval had already been obtained before filing the application in November, 2020 for extension of time to file the charge sheet.
The above fact is not correct as the government counsel had clearly mentioned that clearance under Section 45(1) of UAPA had been obtained from the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and was attached with the case file. However, clearance under Section 45(2) of UAPA was awaited from GNCT Delhi and clearance under Section 39 of the Arms Act was to be obtained after receipt of results from FSL, the bench said.
“Therefore, we are of the view that the reason mentioned in the High Court order that the application for extension was filed without any valid ground as the approval had already been granted is not correct,” the bench said.
The accused here was arrested on June 18, 2020, after an FIR was lodged by the Delhi Police Special Cell on June 16, 2020, under various provisions of UAPA.
