[Section 43D(2) UAPA] Whether Accused Entitled To Copy Of Public Prosecutor's Report At Time Of Remand Extension? Delhi HC To Decide

The Delhi High Court is set to decide the question as to whether an accused is to be provided a copy of the report prepared by public prosecutor under Section 43D(2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act at the time of extension of remand by trial court for a further period of 90 days, beyond the initial period of 90 days.

As per section 43D(2), in cases where it is not possible to complete the investigation within a period of 90 days, the Court may extend the period of detention of the accused upto 180 days. The court may do so on being 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 period of 90 days, as per the provision.

A division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal framed three questions of law to be decided in a bunch of five appeals challenging extension of remand under Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA.

The questions of law framed are as under:

1. Whether at the time of grant of extension of time for further period of 90 days of remand by judge under section 43D(2) of UAPA, a copy of the report of the public prosecutor has to be provided to the accused?
2. Whether at the stage of extension of remand for a further period of 90 days, the report of the public prosecutor should satisfy the three requirements i.e. progress of investigation carried out, whether further investigation is required to be done and whether continued detention of the accused for further investigation for the next 90 days is necessary?
3. Whether the learned special court can grant extension of remand for further 90 days beyond the initial period of 90 days in one go or the said remand should be granted as per requirement of investigation so as to oversee the progress of investigation in next 90 days?

Granting time to the counsel appearing for the appellants to file their written submissions, the bench clarified that it will first be deciding the questions of law as framed and would then proceed to hear the appeals on merits.

The matter will now be heard on November 14.

About the Appeals

One of the pleas moved by Zeeshan Qamar argues that the proviso to Section 43D (2)(b) of UAPA establishes the threshold of impossibility to complete investigation within a period of ninety days.

The plea challenges the trial court's order of granting an extension under Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA in his case. Qamar was arrested from his residence in Uttar Pradesh in September last year in an FIR related to existence of an alleged terror module.

Another plea has been moved by Mohd. Manan Dar, a Kashmir based freelance photojournalist, against a trial court order which granted an extension of 90 days under Section 43D(2) of the UAPA for completion of investigation.

It also seeks consequential directions for Dar's release on default bail under Section 167(1) of CrPC for the reason that the investigating agency failed to file a charge sheet within 90 days of his arrest.

Apart from Dar, three other co accused persons have filed similar appeals which are part of the batch.

Advocate Shahrukh Alam appeared for appellant Zeeshan Qamar. Other appellants are represented by Advocates Tara Narula and Tamanna Pankaj.

Title: MOHD. MANAN DAR v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY and other connected matters