83 UAPA Cases Investigated Since 2005; Chargesheet Filed Within 90 Days In 40, Trial Pending In 29: Delhi Police To High Court

The Delhi Police has informed the Delhi High Court that out of the 83 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act cases investigated by it since 2005, the chargesheets were filed within 90 days in at least 40 cases.

Though the police registered 98 UAPA cases from 2005 till August 7, 2022, 15 of the FIRs were transferred to National Investigation Agency.

Submitting data regarding the remaining 83 cases, the police said that while 40 cases have been decided, the trials are pending in 29 cases. The court has also been informed that investigation is pending in a total of 14 UAPA cases.

Giving further details regarding the time period within which the accused were chargesheeted, the police said it has checked 74 cases only so far, out of the total 83.

The extension of time for filing the chargesheet beyond the period of 90 days was taken in 20 cases, the police told the court in a status report filed in response to a plea challenging the extension of remand under Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA.

Out of the total 14 cases where investigation is pending, arrest has not been made in 12. In the remaining two, the arrests have been made but the initial 90 days are not over yet.

The High Court had last month had directed the police to submit data on the number of such UAPA cases in which the charge sheet was filed within a period of 90 days as well as those in which extension was sought.

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.

The High Court has been hearing a bunch of five appeals challenging the remand extension under section 43D (2)(b) of UAPA.

83 UAPA Cases Investigated Since 2005; Chargesheet Filed Within 90 Days In 40, Trial Pending In 29: Delhi Police To High Courthttps://t.co/boWkNKvhP3 pic.twitter.com/EpRlDxOYTo

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) November 8, 2022

Last month, a division bench headed by Justice Mukta Gupta had framed the following three questions of law to be decided in the appeals:

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?

The appeals will be heard next 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.