Khushi Gupta
Published on: April 17, 2022 at 13:46 IST
The Karnataka High Court denied default Bail to a person Accused of having links with Islamic State of Iraq and the Levan (ISIS).
Justice M Nagaprasanna rejected the Petition and allowed the extension of his Judicial Custody under Section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
“The Order extracted (order of Trial Court granting extension of Judicial Custody) contains detailed reasons assigned by the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) while filing an application extracting the contents of the Report of the Investigating Officer. Therefore, it is not a Case where the report or the opinion of the Investigating Officer or SPP suffers from want of application of mind…
In light of the statute (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act), the judgements of the Apex Court interpreting Section 43D(2)(b) of the Act, the report of the Investigating Officer, the application of the Special Public Prosecutor and the order of extension of judicial custody, what would unmistakably emerge is that, the report of the Investigating Officer is in consonance with the provisions of the Act, so is the application filed by the Special Public Prosecutor,” the Judgment stated.
The Petitioner objected on the grounds that Judicial Custody should not be extended as the Charge-sheet was not filed within 90 days as is required in Law, and sought Bail under Section 167(2) which says, “when Investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours- on the expiry of period of ninety days accused person shall be released on Bail” of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
“Undoubtedly the request of an Investigating Officer for extension of time is not a substitute for the Report of the Public Prosecutor but since we find that there has been, as per the comparison of the two documents, an Application of mind by the Public Prosecutor as well as an endorsement by him, the infirmities in the form should not entitle the Respondents to the Benefit of a default Bail when in substance there has been an application of mind,” the High Court said.
Thus, the Petition was Rejected under the provisions of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.