Delhi Riots: HC Rejects Ishrat Jahan's Plea Challenging The Extension Granted To Police For Completing Investigation Against Her [Read Judgment]

The Court has held that all the requirements under Section 43-D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 have been duly satisfied and hence, there is no ground for intereference with the ASJ's order.

"Public Prosecutor had moved an application, for extension of time to file chargesheet, after going through the whole matrix of the case and after satisfying himself as per the law as enumerated in the second limb of Section 43(D)(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Learned Judge also after going through the facts and circumstances and mandate of provisions of law of the Act mentioned above and after recording his satisfaction had passed impugned order. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no illegality or perversity in the said order," observed the Single Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait.

The proviso of Section 43-D of the Act stipulates that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the period of 90 days, the Court may if it is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of 90 days, extend the period upto 180 days.

Ms. Jahan, who is an accused in cases pertaining to Delhi riots, had challenged the ASJ's order stating that order of the trial court has not taken into consideration the fact that the investigation against her has already been completed and no specific reasons have been put forward by the police to seek extension for investigation against her.

She further submitted that the IO had not satisfied any of the conditions enshrined under section 43(D)2(b) of the UAPA in order to seek extension for investigation.

After hearing both the parties, the Court had reserved order on July 20, 2020.

Finding itself at odds with this submission, the Single Bench observed that a "bare perusal" of the Public Prosecutor's application would reveal the reasons/ grounds for seeking extension of time to complete the investigation.

Further, the ASJ had in unequivocal terms at para nos.30 and 31 of the impugned order held that there exist "sufficient reasons" to extend the period of investigation detention of the accused under section 43-D of UAP Act, 1967.

In these circumstances the Court held,

"The satisfaction of the Court for extension of the period of investigation is clearly recorded in the impugned order dated 15.06.2020. This satisfies the requirement of section 43-D of UAPA…

It is apparent from the above that the court formed an opinion (implicit in the expression "upon perusal") and the opinion so formed was predicated on: a) submissions; b) perusal of case diary and c) Report of the learned Public Prosecutor, which was duly examined to satisfy the requirements of law that: 1) what the progress of investigation was; 2) the specific reasons for detention of the accused beyond the period of 90 days. The court, therefore, has considered all relevant circumstances for passing the order granting extension of period of investigation."

Case Details:

Case Title: Ishrat Jahan v. State

Case No.: Crl MC No. 1525/2020

Quorum: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait

Appearance: Advocates Lalit Valecha, Manu Prabhakar, Tushar Anand and Abhinav Meena (for Petitioner); Standing Counsel (Crl.) Rahul Mehra with APP Amit Chadha, CGSC Amit Mahajan, SPP Amit Prasad (for State)

Click Here To Download Judgment

Read Judgment