The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notice to the prosecuting agency on a petition questioning the proviso to Section 43D (2)(B) of the UAPA that establishes the threshold of impossibility to complete the investigation within a period of ninety days, in order to be eligible for an extension.
A Bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup J Bhambhani asked the prosecuting agency to file a reply on the plea.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by Zeeshan Qamar, challenging trial court orders saying that they were passed without fulfilling the mandatory requirements of an order under Section 43D(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and hence making him eligible for statutory bail under Section 167 (2) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
The petitioner has challenged order dated December 9, 2021 passed by the Special Judge, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court stating that these have been passed "without fulfilling the mandatory requirements of an order under Section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)".
The petition was filed by Shahrukh Alam, Rashmi Singh and Ahmad Ibrahim.
An FIR had been registered against the Appellant on September 10, 2021 under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The petiton said the appellant was "illegally arrested" on September 14, 2021 from his residence in Allahabad, UP. Thereafter, on Septemeber 15, 2021, the Investigating Officer (IO) filed an application seeking 14 days remand of the appellant that was granted by CMM, Patiala House Court.
"In the remand order dated September 15, 2021, Sections 18 & 20 of UAPA, 4 and 5 of Explosives Act and 25 of Arms Act were added against the appellant. On September 29, 2021, an application for extension of remand was made before the Ld. Special Judge, which was opposed by the appellant on grounds that the first remand by the CMM had been without jurisdiction, and also without application of mind, " the petition said.
"However, the arguments were rejected, and the remand was extended by Order dated October 7, 2021. It is submitted that after 85 days of keeping the appellant in custody, the respondent vide application dated December 8, 2021 sought extension of custody by another 90 days. The Special Judge vide impugned order dated December 9, 2021 granted an extension till February 11, 2022 to the Respondent, " it added.
The petitioner has sought setting aside the order dated December 9, 2021 passed by the Special Judge, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court.
He has also sought to be released on bail as per Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 43D(2) of the UAPA.
( With inputs from ANI )
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor