Sudha Bharadwaj's Default Bail: Supreme Court Hearing NIA's Plea -LIVE UPDATES

ASG: The context is investigation, its distinct from inquiry and trial. For remand jurisdiction isn’t relevant. Accused has to be brought before the court.

ASG: Under NIA Act sec 7 is material. It hasn’t been dealt with in Bikramjit, it dealt with 10. Here HC has gone wrong. It says jurisdiction to investigate is concurrent so its with both NIA & state so 22 is attracted 

Bench: Any further extension has to be by the Court, and court has to be satisfied. Acc to J Nariman’s judgement, court had to be reckoned acc to definition which is special definition

ASG: for remand at stage of investigation, investigation is distinct from inquiry & trial. Reliance on 22 which talks about competence of court will not in anyway avail. Which becomes apparent acc to sec 2 of UAPA

ASG: Section 43D states “Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Court may if it is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor extend the said period up to one hundred and eighty days:

ASG: 43D(2) is only modifying period of remand, without touching 167.

Bench 3 When did the period expire?

ASG: 25th Nov 

ASG: Question is if court had competence. There are 2 judgements- Bikramjit & Sadique. Some aspects were missed.

Please see sec 43D

Bench: the house arrest had to be excluded wasn’t known till them

Bench: Question was if person who granted extension had authority or not. If competence was lacking extension wasn’t valid.

Bench: Acc to High Court person who allowed this was incompetent?

ASG: yes

ASG: 90 days expired on 25 Jan 2019. Which is what Hc has also dealt with.

Bench; There’s bo difficulty on this issue? When was application for bail moved?

ASG- application fir extension was allowed in 26 Nov 2018

ASG Aman Lekhi; In declaring extension of period of detention for jurisdictional incompetence, it suffers from 4 counts:Court has ignored 43D(2) has left 162 untouched. Definition of court under 2 of UAPA commences with except for context otherwise requires which has been ignored