Order Rejecting Plea For Extension Of Investigation Period From Initial 90 To 180 Days Under UAPA Appealable, Not Interlocutory: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has recently held that an order rejecting the application for extension of period of investigation from initial 90 to 180 days under Section 43D(2) of UAPA is an appealable order and not an interlocutory order.A division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma said that the finality attached to such an order would be that the prosecution may be unable to again obtain custody of the accused, especially, in a case involving serious offences including under the UAPA. “The accused would be allowed to freely move around in society while the investigation is not concluded and some of the other accused persons are still at large. Such accused could also affect or tamper with evidence or witnesses or even indulge in prejudicial activities which may have a larger impact on society,” the Court said. The Bench held as maintainable the petition filed by the Delhi Police challenging a trial court order that rejected its application seeking extension of time for concluding investigation against various accused persons beyond 90 days under Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The FIR was registered on the basis of secret inputs received by the Special Cell (Delhi) that a highly radicalized Jharkhand based group, along with certain sympathizers based in and around Delhi, were conspiring or planning a terror attack.It was alleged that the accused persons were at an advanced stage of procuring sophisticated weapons in furtherance of their conspiracy.Referring to various judicial precedents, the Bench said that dismissal of the application seeking extension of time has two clear consequences- accused is entitled to default bail and that the release would have a direct bearing on the investigation and the manner in which it would proceed. “Would such an order merely be an interlocutory order against which no appeal would lie? The answer, in view of the position of law as discussed hereinabove, is clearly in the negative,” the Court said. It further noted that some of the accused were still not arrested and absconding and there were possibilities of other accused teaming up with non-apprehended persons and adversely impacting the investigation.“Further, prior to the filing of the charge-sheet, the accused would be released on default bail wherein the usual conditions for grant of bail are not to be gone into by the Trial Court. These consequences are irreversible upon the passing of the impugned order. Any order which can have such irreversible consequences in a case of such magnitude and sensitivity cannot be held to be an interlocutory order,” the Court said. Furthermore, the Bench allowed the application moved by the State for extension of investigation period for 90 days. Title: STATE v. ANAMUL ANSARI & ORS.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1358Click here to read order

Order Rejecting Plea For Extension Of Investigation Period From Initial 90 To 180 Days Under UAPA Appealable, Not Interlocutory: Delhi HC

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Order Rejecting Plea For Extension Of Investigation Period From Initial 90 To 180 Days Under UAPA Appealable, Not Interlocutory: Delhi HC

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers