LI Network
Published on: October 15, 2023 at 18:48 IST
The Delhi High Court, in a case involving the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), declined to quash remand orders, emphasizing that once the grounds for arrest are communicated to the accused, there is no procedural violation of Section 43B of the UAPA or Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner had alleged an infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution and sought to declare the remand order null and void.
The petitioner’s argument centered on the claim that the grounds for arrest were not conveyed to them at the time of arrest. However, the respondent firmly asserted that the grounds were not only orally conveyed but also provided in writing through the arrest memo.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, in a single-judge bench, evaluated the gravity of the offenses under the UAPA, emphasizing their direct impact on national security and the country’s stability and integrity.
After a thorough examination, the Court concluded that the grounds for arrest had indeed been communicated to the petitioner, and there was no procedural infirmity or violation of Section 43B of the UAPA or Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
The Court examined the remand application’s contents and found that the essence of the allegations supporting the arrest was present in the application. Additionally, the written application was provided to the petitioner’s counsel within 24 hours of the arrest, and the petitioner’s legal counsel participated in the remand proceedings, albeit through telephone communication with the Special Judge.
Interestingly, the petitioner had the opportunity to meet with their counsel shortly after the arrest, but the petition did not mention any objections raised by the petitioner or their counsel regarding the lack of information about the grounds for arrest.
The Court also found it perplexing that the petitioner claimed to have received a copy of the FIR only after filing an application requesting it. Still, there was no mention of an application filed on October 4, 2023, objecting to the remand proceedings.
Moreover, the Court noted that it was inexplicable how the petitioner knew, even before receiving a copy of the current FIR, that it was a second FIR registered for the same allegations and transactions as a previous FIR related to offenses under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
In the end, considering the gravity of the offenses under the UAPA and their implications for national security, the Court upheld the legality of the remand order in the circumstances.
The case was titled “Amit Chakraborty and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi).”