Whether A Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Is Competent To Grant Extension Of Time For Investigation U/s 43D(2)(b) UAPA: Supreme Court To Examine

Whether a Chief Judicial Magistrate court is competent to grant extension of time for investigation under in terms of Section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967? The Supreme Court issued notice in a Special Leave Petition which raised this issue.

In this case, the UAPA accused were remanded by the Court of C.J.M, Bhopal. Subsequently, when 90 days' period was about to be over, the application was filed stating that 90 days' period is about to be over yet investigation could not be completed. Allowing this application C.J.M extended the period of detention to 180 days. Thereafter, the accused filed application for statutory bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C stating that the period of detention has been more than 90 days and the charge sheet has not been filed. The C.J.M, Bhopal dismissed the applications stating that the provision of Section 43 (D) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 provides 180 days for completion of investigation.

Before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, it was contended by the accused that the Special Court established under Section 22 of the National Investigation Agency, Act, 2008 is only empowered to extend the period of detention from 90 days to 180 days. However, the High Court refused to interfere observing that the extension of the period of investigation has not resulted into failure of justice.

Before the Supreme Court, referring to a recent judgment in Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab [reported in (2020) 10 SCC 616],  Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, who appeared for the petitioner, contended that the expression "Court" appearing in Section 43D is to be seen in the light of definition of "Court" appearing in Section 2(1)(d) of the UAPA Act and as such, the Chief Judicial Magistrate who dealt with the instant matter was not competent to grant extension of time in terms of Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA Act. He contended that the petitioner was entitled to the relief of default bail in terms of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with the provisions of UAPA Act.  The State, on the other hand, relied upon the decision in Vidyadharan v. State of Kerala [reported in (2004) (1) SCC 215].

"Considering the importance of the matter, we request Mr.S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General to assist this Court. Let copies of the paper book be handed over to the office of Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General within two days. List this matter for further consideration on 08th July, 2021.", the bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, Ajay Rastogi and Aniruddha Bose observed in the order.

Click here to Read/Download Order