UAPA: Delhi High Court Rejects NIA's Preliminary Objection To Maintainability Of Plea Challenging Arrest Of UNLF 'Army Chief', Associates

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday rejected the preliminary objection raised by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) regarding the maintainability of the petition filed by self-styled Army Chief of the United National Liberation Front (UNLF) and his two associates challenging their arrest in a UAPA case.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said that the petition is maintainable and entertained the same for arguments on merits of the case.

The three accused persons were arrested by NIA on March 13. The UAPA case alleges that they were involved in a trans-national conspiracy hatched by a foreign-based leadership of terror outfits, to exploit the ethnic unrest, to execute terrorist attacks in the State of Manipur and to wage war against the Government of India.

The agency further alleged that all three accused were involved in raising funds for the UNLF by committing extortion as well as recruiting cadres and procuring weapons to incite violence in Manipur.

The NIA raised preliminary objection stating that the petition was not maintainable as the grounds of challenge were already agitated by the accused persons before a division bench in aan earlier writ petition which was dismissed as withdrawn after lengthy arguments.

It was argued that the principle of constructive res- judicata applied to the case and a second writ petition based on the same facts as well as cause of action was not maintainable.

On the other hand, the accused submitted that their arrest was illegal. They also challenged the trial court orders remanding them to NIA custody and judicial custody, arguing that the same were non-est in law.

Rejecting NIA's preliminary objection, the court noted that the accused had moved a petition seeking the writ of habeas corpus before the Division Bench, since at that stage they were unaware of the basis of their detention and were seeking the relief that they be produced before a court of law.

“Subsequently however, the petitioners withdrew the petition filed before the Division Bench, whereby they sought and were granted specific liberty “to agitate the same issues before Competent Court/Forum,” the court said.

Justice Bhambhani further said it is neither necessary nor proper for the court to speculate as to what transpired before the Division Bench, since the Division bench granted liberty to the accused persons to agitate the same issues before a competent court or forum.

“It is also noteworthy that in the prayers made before the Division Bench, the petitioners had challenged their arrest only in the context of a habeas corpus plea; whereas by way of the present petition they have challenged, both their arrest as well as their remand on the anvil of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court referred-to above, which challenge was not before the Division Bench,” the court said.

It concluded: “All else apart, this court is of the view that in matters concerning questions of personal liberty, it would never be just or proper to reject a plea based on a pedantic, hyper-technical or restrictive construction of order dated 16.04.2024 made by the Division Bench, especially when that order expressly grants to the petitioners liberty to agitate the same issues before the competent court or forum.”

The petition was filed by Aditya Giri along with Siddhartha Borgohain, Advocates.

Title: THOKCHOM SHYAMJAI SINGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH HOME SECRETARY & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1087

Click here to read order