[Breaking] Delhi HC Refuses Default Bail To Sharjeel Imam; Upholds Trial Court Order Extending Time For Probe [Read Judgment]

Delhi High Court has rejected the plea moved by Sharjeel Imam challenging the decision of the trial court wherein the Delhi Police was granted an extension of 3 months, beyond the statutory period of 90 days, to complete the investigation against him for offences under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. The Single Bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao observed that the trial court while granting the extension of investigation had satisfied itself with the application of the Additional Public Prosecutor about the reasons or grounds on which the extension of time for doing investigation was sought. The court held that the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) had given adequate reasons in his report for seeking an extension to complete the investigation and the trial court properly satisfied itself of the said reasons before the passing the order. The court further held that that there was a complete compliance with the principles of natural justice by the said trial court by noting that: 'The fact that the counsel of the petitioner was in the knowledge about the impending application / report seeking extension of time for completion of the investigation beyond 90 days and a written notice giving reasons is not the requirement of law, I find, there is a compliance of principles of natural justice.' The court rejected the claim of Imam wherein he had argued that he was not issued a written notice to appear before the trial judge who perused the report of the APP by noting that: '...the notice to the accused must not be construed as a written notice but only production of the accused at the time of consideration of the report of the APP for grant of extension of investigation and informing the accused that the extension of the period for completing the investigation is under consideration.' An FIR had been filed against Imam under Sections 153A, 124A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code, and pursuant to the same, Imam had been arrested on January 28th. Subsequently, provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, had been invoked against him. On the 88th day of his custody, an application to extend time for probe was filed under Section 43D of the UAPA, thereby depriving him of the right to access statutory bail which is granted after 90 days of custody as per Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In light of the above, Imam's plea for default bail under Section 167 of CrPC was rejected by the trial court and time was given to the Delhi Police to investigate under provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The instant petition before the Delhi High Court has been filed on behalf of Imam to set aside the Order of the trial court which had allowed the Delhi Police three more months, beyond the normal statutory 90 days, to conduct an investigation for commission of offences under UAPA. Senior Advocate Rebecca John, appearing on behalf of Imam, had submitted to the Court that there was no notice issued by the Court regarding the extension of the probe time beyond 90 days under provisions UAPA. She had instead received a WhatsApp message on the 24th of April from the Investigation Officer with respect to the extension being sought under UAPA. John invoked various cases, such as Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (1994), Sanjay Kumar Kedia v. GNCTD (1996) and Mohd. Maroof & Ors. v. State (2015) to underline the importance of how the essential requirements under Section 43D(2) of UAPA had been foregone as neither notice had been issued at the level of the Court, nor any compelling reasons had been provided by the Public Prosecutor for the extension of the probe time. Additionally, the defendant had also not been produced before the Court, thereby depriving him of the ability to contest the allegations. She had stated that the notice issued by the IO could not, by any stretch of imagination, be termed as notice issued by the Court. Additionally, Section 43D does not envisage any private communication between the IO and the Counsel of the accused. "Notice is supposed to be issued by the Court. I got the information by the IO on WhatsApp at 11 AM. Court is supposed to look at the report of the Public Prosecutor. When the IO messaged, that report was not in existence. IO's communication to me on 24th April was meaningless because no report was present. The Court then noted that I had REFUSED to come." John had further argued that the message was, therefore, "premature, meaningless and missed a lot of statutory steps" and had put her in a situation wherein, despite having information about the matter, she was not able to appear. John had also emphasized on the responsibilities of the Public Prosecutor to apply his/her mind in an independent manner before endorsing the report of the Investigation...

[Breaking] Delhi HC Refuses Default Bail To Sharjeel Imam; Upholds Trial Court Order Extending Time For Probe [Read Judgment]

Karan Tripathi

Tags