Supreme Court revokes default bail in UAPA case, overturning Delhi HC's order [Read Judgment]

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has cancelled default bail granted to an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for non filing of a charge sheet within stipulated time period.

The top court set aside the Delhi High Court's order of February 11, 2021, granting default bail to Raj Kumar alias Lovepreet alias Lovely, under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal ordered forthwith custody of the accused as the police had already filed the charge sheet prior to extended time.

The accused was arrested on June 18, 2020 after registration of an FIR by Delhi police Special Cell on June 16, 2020 under various provisions of the UAPA.

During the course of investigation, one Gurtej Singh had been arrested who had links with Pakistan based terrorists and had been planning to go to Pakistan for weapons training along with his associate respondent Rajkumar alias Lovely and others, the court recorded in its order.  

"One more aspect to be considered is the nature of offence which involved terrorist activities having not only Pan India impact but also impact on other enemy States. The matter should not have been taken so lightly," the bench said.  

Dealing with an appeal by the Delhi government, the bench also said under Section 43 D(2)(b) of the UAPA, the extension for investigation could be granted up to a maximum period of 180 days for specific reasons.

The High Court failed to consider the Supreme court's judgment in the case of 'State of Maharashtra vs Surendra Pundlik Gadling and others' (2019) related to extension of time for filing charge sheet but had relied upon the judgment in case of 'Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others vs the State of Maharashtra and others' (1994) relating to provisions of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, the bench said.

The bench noted the High Court also committed an error in recording that the sanction was already obtained before filing of the application in November, 2020 for extension of time to file the charge sheet.

The said fact is not correct as the public prosecutor had clearly mentioned that the sanction under section 45(1) of UAPA had been received from Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and was attached with the case file. However, the sanction under section 45(2) of UAPA was awaited from GNCT Delhi and that the sanction under section 39 of the Arms Act was to be obtained after the results from the FSL was received, the bench said.

"We are, therefore, of the view that the reason mentioned in the HC order that the application had been filed for extension without any valid basis as the sanction had already been granted, was not correct," the bench said.

[Read Judgment]