Delhi High Court Upholds Extension Of UAPA Detention Of Six Ukrainian Nationals Accused Of Training Myanmar Armed Groups In Drone Warfare
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea filed by six Ukrainian nationals challenging the extension of their detention beyond 90 days and up to 180 days in a UAPA case concerning allegations of involvement in drone warfare-related activities for Myanmar-based ethnic armed groups.Justice Madhu Jain said that the special judge considered the report of the Public Prosecutor and the...
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea filed by six Ukrainian nationals challenging the extension of their detention beyond 90 days and up to 180 days in a UAPA case concerning allegations of involvement in drone warfare-related activities for Myanmar-based ethnic armed groups.
Justice Madhu Jain said that the special judge considered the report of the Public Prosecutor and the case diaries before recording satisfaction regarding the necessity of further investigation and extension of detention.
“At this stage, this Court does not find any material to conclude that the discretion exercised by the learned Special Judge was arbitrary or suffered from non- application of mind,” the Court said in an order passed on August 31.
The petitioners were arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) at Lucknow and Delhi airports on March 13 pursuant to an FIR registered under Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
According to the prosecution case, the petitioners, who are Ukrainian nationals holding Indian tourist visas, were among 14 Ukrainian nationals who had entered India on tourist visas, travelled to Mizoram without the requisite Restricted Area Permit or Protected Area Permit and thereafter allegedly entered Myanmar illegally.
They were allegedly involved in training concerning drone warfare, drone operations, assembly and jamming technology for Myanmar-based Ethnic Armed Groups.
For context, the NIA yesterday filed its chargesheet in the case but did not invoke offences under UAPA for now. As the agency has pressed charges solely under Sections 21 and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, it has maintained that investigation into UAPA offences is still on.
After their arrest, the petitioners were produced before the trial court on March 14 and initially remanded to police custody. Their police custody was extended from time to time and ultimately continued for 24 days, till April 06. They were thereafter remanded to judicial custody, while the period of investigation and detention was subsequently extended.
On June 03, the NIA moved an application seeking extension of the investigation period, and consequently the detention of the petitioners, beyond 90 days up to the maximum permissible period of 180 days. The Special NIA Court allowed the plea on June 04, before expiry of the initial 90-day period.
The petitioners challenged the said order arguing that the statutory requirements for extending detention had not been satisfied and that the NIA had not demonstrated why their continued custody was necessary.
They also contended that the Special Court mechanically granted the entire remaining period of 90 days instead of determining whether a shorter extension was sufficient.
Dismissing their plea, the Court noted that Section 43-D(2)(b) of UAPA requires the Special Court to be satisfied, on the basis of the Public Prosecutor's report, regarding the progress of investigation and the specific reasons for detention beyond 90 days.
It noted that the petitioners were given notice of the application seeking extension and their objections were considered by the Special Judge. It also noted that the Special Court recorded that the report of the prosecutor contained the progress of investigation and the reasons for seeking further detention and that the material in the case diaries corroborated the same.
Further, Justice Jain said that material in the case indicated that investigation involved examination of digital devices, pending forensic reports, extracted electronic data, financial transactions and field investigation concerning additional entities, besides tracing and examining persons connected with the investigation.
The High Court also rejected the argument that the Special Court had acted mechanically by granting the maximum permissible period of 180 days. It held that the mere fact that the maximum permissible period was granted cannot, in the absence of any demonstrable perversity or violation of the statutory requirements, justify interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.
On the petitioners' claim for default bail, the Court held that where a valid order extending the investigation period is passed before expiry of the prescribed 90-day period, the accused cannot claim a right to default bail merely because the charge-sheet was not filed within the initial 90 days.
“The learned Special Judge held that an application seeking extension was not required to be deferred until the 90th day merely to await the accrual of a claim for default bail. The application for extension was considered and allowed before expiry of the statutory period. Consequently, the petitioners cannot claim default bail merely on the basis that the initial period of 90 days subsequently expired,” the judge said.
“Where a valid order extending the period for completion of investigation has been passed before the expiry of the prescribed period, no not been filed within the initial period of 90 days. The petitioners' challenge, therefore, ultimately depends upon establishing that the order of extension itself was contrary to the statutory requirements. For the reasons recorded above, no such infirmity has been demonstrated,” it added.
The Court also rejected their submission that separate and elaborate reasons were required to be recorded in the impugned order in respect of each of the petitioners.
Title: HURBA PETRO AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS