Important point
Extension of time for completion of investigation u/s 49(2)(b) of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 is not to be granted as a matter of course but subject to conditions enumerated in the Act.

Headnote:(i) Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002—Section 49(2)(b)—Grant of extension of time to complete the investigation—Extension is not to be granted as matter of course but subject to conditions enumerated in the Act—Report of Public Prosecutor must satisfy Court that Investigating Agency had acted diligently and for reasons the investigation could not be completed within 90 days—A blast took place in local train in Mumbai killing and injuring several people—Investigation disclosed incident was the result of a conspiracy hatched by several persons to strike terror—Appellant accused was arrested in the case and 90 days to complete investigation was to expire on 13-7-2003—Application seeking extension of time to complete investigation—Case revealed that there was a deep rooted and wide spread conspiracy and despite arrest of 16 persons, the persons who were real brain behind bomb blast were still absconding—Circumstances existed justifying extension of period u/s 49(2)(b) of the Act.
       Held : We have carefully perused the said application filed by the Public Prosecutor and we are satisfied that the High Court rightly rejected the aforesaid contention. The Special Public Prosecutor in his application explained that the investigation of the case revealed that there was a deep-rooted and widespread conspiracy which had bearing on national security and, therefore, it was necessary to unearth the deep-rooted conspiracy and to bring to book all the conspirators and the perpetrators involved in connection with offences committed by them pursuant to the conspiracy. Unfortunately, some of them could be apprehended but many of them were still to be arrested. Despite the arrest of 16 such persons, the persons who were the real brain behind the bomb blast were still absconding. There was some reliable information about their whereabouts and, therefore, police officers had been deputed to different States to apprehend them. After arrest, those apprehended have to be interrogated and further investigation has to be carried out. Moreover, some of the accused persons who were in police custody, were also involved in other bomb blast cases and it had not been possible to call them for identification by witnesses who had been traced out recently. Moreover, 21 audio cassettes and one Urdu book had been recovered at the instance of one of the arrested accused which had been sent for transcription and translation to the Office of the Chief Translator and Interpreter, High Court, Mumbai. The translation had not so far been received. Moreover, investigation disclosed that the arrested accused and other accused had communicated with each other on telephone. The printouts regarding the calls made had to be obtained from different companies and thereafter the data collected has to be analysed. Though, some of the printouts had been received many others have yet to be received. In this manner, in the application the Special Public Prosecutor explained how despite serious efforts made to trace out the absconding accused who were spread all over the country, it had not been possible to complete the investigation. Having regard to the seriousness of the incident which took place in Mulund in Mumbai, it was absolutely necessary to carry out a detailed investigation. The High Court was satisfied that the application filed before the Special Court by the Public Prosecutor complied with the requirements of Section 49(2)(b) of the Act, inasmuch as the application indicated the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the period of 90 days. It is no doubt true that the Constitution mandates that the person detained in custody should not be kept in detention for any unreasonable time. The Code of Criminal Procedure also ensures that such a person is not detained in custody unreasonably and that the investigation must proceed with promptness and report submitted to the Court within the period prescribed by law. If the prosecution fails to do so, the person detained in custody is entitled to apply for his release on bail. However, in cases involving serious offences such as those under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 the legislature has advisedly given some latitude to the investigating machinery in the matter of completion of the investigation by providing for extension of time of complete the investigation. The extension is, however, not to be granted as a matter of course, but subject to conditions enumerated in the Act. Unless those conditions are satisfied, the Court will refuse to grant the extension. The report of the Public Prosecutor must satisfy the Court that the Investigating Agency had acted diligently and though there had been progress of the investigation, yet it was not possible for reasons disclosed to complete the investigation within the period of 90 days. In such cases, having regard to the progress of the investigation and the specific reason for grant of extension of time, the Court, may, extend the period for completion of the investigation thereby enabling the Court to remand the accused to custody during the extended period. These are compulsions which arise in extra-ordinary situations. (Paras 11 to 13)
       (ii) Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002—Section 49(2)(b)—Application for extension of time for investigation—No statutory requirement to give notice to accused in any particular form—Fair play and principles of natural justice demand that before granting extension of time Court must give notice to accused to oppose the application if so advised. (Para 14)
       (iii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 167(2)—Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002—Section 49(2)(b) —Bail application on completion of 90 days of arrest of accused and still charge-sheet not filed—Prior to completion of 90 days, Special Court under POTA granted extension of time for investigation for offences under POTA —Accused appellant would not be entitled to bail on the ground. (Para 18)

Judgment

B.P. Singh, J.—Special leave granted.

2. In this appeal the petitioner has impugned the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 29th August, 2003 in Criminal Appeal No. 995 of 2003. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and upheld the order of the Special Judge dated 11.07.2003 granting extension of time to complete the investigation in exercise of power under Section 49(2)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, as also the order of the Special Judge dated 25.7.2003 dismissing the bail application of the appellant herein.

3. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this appeal, may be noticed at the outset. A blast took place in a local train approaching platform No.3 of the Mulund Railway Station, Mumbai, resulting in the death of 11 persons and injuring 82 others. Investigation disclosed that the incident was the result of a conspiracy hatched by several persons to strike terror in the minds of people by explosion of bombs and preparations to wage war against the State. In connection with the said incident case No. DCB, CID, C.R. No. 21/2003 was registered under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Explosives Act read with Explosive Substances Act, Damage to Public Property Act, Indian Railways Act as also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

4. On 15.4.2003 the appellant was arrested from Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai, in connection with the above case. He was produced before the Special Court which remanded him to police custody till 28.4.2003. The period of remand was again extended till 12th May, 2003. Thereafter the appellant was remanded to judicial custody on 12th May, 2003. This remand was extended from time to time.

5. It appears that three other similar incidents took place, and in those cases as well the involvement of the appellant was suspected. The police sought custody of the appellant in each of those three cases.

6. The appellant having been arrested on 15th April, 2003, the period of 90 days for completing the investigation was to expire on July 13, 2003. On 11.7.2003 he was remanded to judicial custody at about 1130 hours by the Special Court. Later, an application was moved for extension of time to complete the investigation under Section 49(2)(b) of the Act. It is not disputed before us that extension of time for completing the investigation was sought in connection with Mulund blast case. It is also not disputed that the advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant was present in Court at that time in connection with another case namely, the Mumbai blast case. Immediately he made an enquiry and came to know that the prayer for extension of time to complete the investigation had been made in Mulund blast case. He, therefore, immediately enquired of the appellant as to whether he had been informed of the fact that the prosecution had moved an application for extension of time under Section 49(2)(b) of the Act. The appellant’s answer was in the negative. His advocate, therefore, requested the Special Public Prosecutor to supply him a copy of the application which was duly supplied. A prayer was made by the appellant’s advocate for a week’s adjournment so as to enable him to file a reply. However, the Court granted him time till 2.45 p.m. to file a reply which was accordingly filed by the appellant’s advocate. In the reply filed on behalf of the appellant an objection was taken that no notice had been given to the accused and, therefore, he was unable to give an effective reply to the facts stated in the application for extension because of insufficiency of time. It was also contended that the application did not disclose any specific reason for the extension for the period of remand as required by Section 49(2)(b) of the Act.

7. After hearing the parties the Special Court allowed th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 1083

Important pointExtension of time for completion of investigation u/s 49(2)(b) of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 is not to be granted as a matter of course but subject to conditions enumerated in the Act.

Cases Referred (2)

Important point
Extension of time for completion of investigation u/s 49(2)(b) of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 is not to be granted as a matter of course but subject to conditions enumerated in the Act.