11 Oct 2022 2:45 PM GMT
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to submit data on the number of such UAPA cases in which the charge sheet was filed within a period of 90 days.The division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal has also asked the police to provide data on the cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act wherein extension was sought for completion of probe and it...
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to submit data on the number of such UAPA cases in which the charge sheet was filed within a period of 90 days.
The division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal has also asked the police to provide data on the cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act wherein extension was sought for completion of probe and it was granted by the trial court.
The court has further sought details about the period within which the chargesheets were filed after grant of such extension.
While directing the State to file a response in the case and listing the matter on October 19, the court said:
"In the meantime, State will file a data showing, in how many cases under UAPA, charge sheet was filed within 90 days; in how many cases, extension of time was sought and in case, extension was sought as also the period for which, extension was granted and the period in which, charge sheet was filed thereafter well before the next date of hearing."
The order has been passed in a plea arguing that the proviso to Section 43D (2)(b) of UAPA establishes the threshold of impossibility to complete investigation within a period of ninety days.
The plea has been moved by one Zeeshan Qamar against the trial court's order of granting an extension under Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA in his case. Advocate Shahraukh Alam, appearing for the petitioner, concluded arguments in the matter on October 7.
Alam has earlier argued that the threshold for extension of investigation under UAPA is graver than that contained under Section 167(2) CrPC.
She also submitted that under UAPA, the investigating officer must show that it was "impossible" to complete the investigation within the stipulated period of 90 days, as opposed to 'adequate grounds' mentioned in CrPC.
Qamar was arrested from his residence in Uttar Pradesh in September last year in an FIR related to existence of an alleged terror module. Thereafter, he was remanded to 14 days by the CMM, Patiala House Court.
However, subsequently, Sections 18 and 20 of the UAPA; Section 4 and 5 of Explosives Act and Section 25 of Arms Act were also invoked against him.
An application seeking extension of remand was then filed before the Special Judge on September 29, 2021 which was opposed by Qamar on the ground that the first remand by the CMM was without jurisdiction. However, the arguments were rejected, and his remand was extended.
On December 8, 2021, another application seeking extension of period of investigation was filed wherein the Special Judge vide impugned order dated December 9, 2021 granted an extension till February 11, 2021.
It has further been averred that the impossibility of examination of data and other factors must be calculated from the date of arrest and recovery of material and not from the date on which the application for extension of period for pre-charge detention is filed.
Accordingly, the plea seeks quashing of the impugned order passed by the Special Judge and prays that Qamar be released on bail.
The appeallant was represented by Advocates Shahraukh Alam, Rashmi Singh, Ahmed Ibrahim and Shantanu. APP Shubhi Gupta appeared for the State.
Case Title: Zeeshan Qamar v. The State of NCT of Delhi
Click Here To Read Order