Tanisha Rana
Published on: November 8, 2022 at 21:02 IST
Since 2005, the Delhi Police has registered 98 cases under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), investigated 83 of them, and submitted chargesheets in 40 cases within the required 90-day period, the Delhi Police has informed the Delhi High Court.
According to the data, in 20 cases, the police requested an extension of the 90-day deadline for filing the chargesheet.
The Delhi Police further indicated in an affidavit submitted to the court that out of the 98 cases that were registered, 15 were transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
The Police only supplied information on 74 of the remaining 83 cases because the others were still unchecked.
Of those, 40 cases were resolved, while 14 were under investigation and 29 were pending trial.
Twelve of the 14 cases that are still being looked into involve no arrests, and two involve arrests that took place but the required 90 days have not yet passed.
The information was provided after the Delhi Police was ordered by the High Court to furnish information on the number of UAPA cases in which a chargesheet was filed within a 90-day timeframe and cases in which an extension was requested.
The trial court’s order extending the length of imprisonment from 90 to 180 days is being challenged in five appeals before the court.
According to Section 43D(2) of the UAPA, if the investigation cannot be completed in the allotted 90 days, the Court may, if it is satisfied with the public prosecutor’s report outlining the investigation’s progress and the specific reasons for the accused’s continued detention after the 90-day period, extend the detention up to 180 days.
The division bench of Justices Mukta Gupta and Anish Dayal had previously stated that they will look into several procedural issues related to the extension of this detention period.
In addition, the bench framed three questions on the issue and stated that it will address them as it addressed the other issues that were brought before it.
The questions framed by the court are:
- Whether at the time of grant of extension of time for further period of 90 days of remand by judge under Section 43D(2) of UAPA, copy of report of the public prosecutor has to be provided to the accused;
- Whether at the stage of extension of remand for the period of 90 days, the report of the public prosecutor should satisfy the three requirements i.e. progress of investigation carried out, whether further investigation is required to be done and whether continued detention of the accused for further investigation for the next 90 days is necessary;
- Whether the special court can grant extension of remand for further 90 days beyond the initial period of 90 days in one go or the said remand should be granted as per requirement of investigation so as to oversee progress of investigation in next 90 days.
Zeeshan Qamar, who was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for allegedly travelling to Pakistan and obtaining explosives handling instruction at the same time that the ISI was planning a series of explosions in India, has filed one of the appeals.
Mohammad Manan Dar, a photojournalist from Kashmir, has also filed a petition opposing the continuation of his arrest.
Dar has also asked for his release on default bail, citing the NIA’s failure to submit a chargesheet in the case.