Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently ruled that, under the same provisions of Section 43D (2)(b) of the UAP Act, an Investigating Officer's requisition for an extension of time (of detention beyond 90 days) cannot be used as an alternative for the public prosecutor's report. The bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul emphasized the importance of a Public Prosecutor's review of detention under UAPA in order to avoid leaving a detainee in the hands of the I.O. It's worth noting that Section 43D(2)(b) of the ULA(P) Act states that if a police agency is unable to complete an investigation of a case under UAPA within 90 days, the detention may be extended by the Court for another 180 days if the Court determines with the Public Prosecutor's report detailing the investigation's progress as well as the specific charges.
In the other words, the section simply makes a public prosecutor's report a deciding factor in trying to extend an accused's detention beyond the 90-day limit. The appellants were arrested in connection with a case under RPC Section 120-B, ULA(P) Act Sections 17, 18, 38, 39, and 40. They preferred to file bail applications with the Trial Court. The applications were dismissed by the Trial Court in the aforementioned order. They petitioned the High Court, claiming that because the police agency failed to complete their investigation of their case within 90 days, they were entitled to an inalienable right to be released on bail after that period expired. They also claimed that there was no specific proposal from the prosecutor's office to extend their detention and that the Trial Court had increased their detention further than the ninety-day timespan on the Investigating Officer's applications (I.O.). The Court noted that the Trial Court erred in passing the impugned order, emphasizing that the prosecutor's role is distinct from that of the investigating agency, as it is an autonomous statutory authority.
As a result, the impugned Order dated 25th May 2019 issued by the court of Special Judge designated under the NIA Act, Srinagar, was set aside, and the appellants were granted bail subject to their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of money of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties in the same quantity to the contentment of the Presiding Officer.
Allow Cookies!By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Copyright Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.