Terrorist Activities Have Impact On India & Other Enemy States: Supreme Court Sets Aside Default Bail Granted To UAPA Accused
The Supreme Court set aside a Delhi High Court Order granting bail to an accused who allegedly had links with Pakistan-based terrorists and had been planning to go to Pakistan for weapons training.
The Government of Delhi had filed an appeal against an Order of the Delhi High Court granting default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 to the accused.
A Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed that “the nature of offence which involved terrorist activities having not only Pan India impact but also impact on other enemy States. The matter should not have been taken so lightly.”
ASG S.V. Raju appeared for the appellant while AOR Supriya Juneja appeared for the respondent.
An FIR was registered against the accused for offences under Sections 13/18/20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, Sections 201/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959.
He was initially remanded to Police Custody for a period of three days and then in Judicial Custody for 90 days. The time for investigation was extended for a further period of two months and no police report was filed. Before the extended investigation period expired, the prosecution filed an application for a 30-day extension as per Section 43D (2) (b) of UAPA. This application was allowed by the Trial Court.
The accused then filed a bail application, which was rejected by the Trial Court, but on petition was allowed by the Delhi High Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed an error in allowing the petition and granting default bail to the accused noting that the finding of the sanction being received before the application for extension was incorrect. The Public Prosecutor had explicitly stated in the application that while the sanction under section 45(1) of UAPA had been obtained from the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and was attached to the case file, the sanction under section 45(2) of UAPA was still awaited from the Delhi Government.
The Court clarified that the High Court's assertion in their Order that the application for extension lacked a valid basis due to the already granted sanction was incorrect.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Order of the High Court.
Cause Title: State of NCT of Delhi v. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 11)
Appearance:
Appellant: ASG S.V. Raju, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Sairica Raju, Ashutosh Ghade, and Guntur Pramod Kumar
Respondent: AOR Supriya Juneja
