LI Network
Published on: January 5, 2024 at 11:10 IST
In a case concerning the grant of default bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), the Supreme Court overturned a decision by the Delhi High Court, highlighting the seriousness of terrorism-related charges and the error in granting default bail too lightly.
A Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal emphasized that the conditions stipulated in Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA were met in the case. They pointed out that the High Court’s reliance on a Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) judgment to grant default bail was misplaced, as the specific provisions and judgments under the UAPA were more pertinent.
The case involved Lovepreet, accused under the UAPA, alongside other charges related to being a Khalistani sympathizer. Despite extension requests for ongoing investigations, the respondent sought default bail before the completion of the extended investigative period, which was initially rejected by the Trial Court but granted by the High Court. The Delhi police appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court highlighted that the Trial Court had indicated, during the extension of the investigation, that the extension was sought pending mandatory sanction from the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD).
The Bench clarified that the High Court erred in finding that the necessary sanction had been obtained before the extension application, noting discrepancies in the Trial Court’s order and the actual status of obtaining sanctions under various sections of the UAPA and the Arms Act.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court analyzed Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA, which allows courts to extend investigation time up to 180 days based on the Public Prosecutor’s report on the investigation’s progress and reasons for the accused’s detention.
The Court concluded that the Public Prosecutor provided substantial details of the ongoing investigation’s progress and reasons for detaining the respondent in the extension request, justifying the need for additional time to complete the investigation due to pending sanctions and forensic reports.
The Bench stressed that the High Court overlooked the specific provisions and reasons for extension under the UAPA while comparing it to a TADA case. It was emphasized that the seriousness of the alleged terrorist activities should not be underestimated, considering their wide-ranging impact.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision, directing immediate custody of the respondent if not already in custody.
