‘Seek long remand only if needed in UAPA cases’: Delhi high court

The court also said the public prosecutor’s report must have three pointers based on which the special court will extend the period of remand.

Investigating agencies probing cases under the strict Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) should be allowed only as much time as is required to complete their investigation, the Delhi high court said on Friday, calling for a need to balance the rights of accused while also giving agencies enough time to conclude the probe fairly.

According to Section 43D (2) of UAPA, in cases where it is not possible to complete the investigation within 90 days, the court may extend the period of detention of the accused by another 90 days.

The remark was made in a judgment in which the high court criticised the default 90-day extension that agencies seek and are granted by special courts. “If on the facts of a given case, further investigation can be completed within 30 days or 45 days, the special court will not grant an extension of 90 days, but for only 30 or 45 days, subject to the right of the prosecution to seek further extension if necessary. This will also ensure that the investigating agency does not procrastinate, be tardy and take it leisurely... and file the charge sheet at the end... and will also have to justify the requirement of further time period required for completing the investigation,” the court said.

According to Section 43D (2) of UAPA, in cases where it is not possible to complete the probe within 90 days, the court may extend the period of detention of the accused by another 90 days.

The high court said the public prosecutor’s report must have three pointers based on which the special court will extend the period of remand: the report must indicate the progress of investigation carried out, why the investigation could not be completed in 90 days – that there was no unnecessary, deliberate or avoidable delay – and what further investigation is required for which extension of time is necessary.

The court’s direction came while hearing a bunch of pleas by those booked under UAPA, challenging the extension of their custody beyond the initial 90 days. The bench of justices Mukta Gupta and Anish Dayal said investigating agencies can move court again to extend the accused’s remand, and seek more time to complete the investigation based on the fresh report. The court also ruled that it was not necessary to share the report with the accused, while seeking extension of his/her judicial remand.

The court said a special court should take specific reasons for seeking further detention into account and whether from the investigation carried out till that date, there is sufficient material to form a reasonable belief that prima facie an offence under UAPA is made out against the accused. However, the bench clarified that when an accused is produced before the court during extension of remand, he or she cannot be a silent spectator, adding that the special court would be required to take into consideration the submission on behalf of the accused while examining the public prosecutor’s report.

“...if the accused is heard on the relevant facts which go to the root of granting extension of time for continued investigation, the same will be a meaningful notice. With these safeguards provided to the accused... we find no merit in the contention... that for a meaningful notice, the report of the public prosecutor is required to be provided to the accused at the stage of grant of extension of remand for continued investigation,” the court said in its judgment.