ORDER

1. The petitioner herein was arrested on 31st, May, 2009, along with one Mohit Hojai and on the same ,day they were produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, at Guwahati. In the forwarding report it was indicated that the ground for arresting the petitioner was that during interrogation of Mohit Hojai, who was the Chief Executive Member of the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council, had disclosed that he sending an amount of Rs.1 crore to an organization known as DHD’( J), an extremist organization, to enable it to purchase arms and ammunitions. It was indicated that Mohit Hojai had also disclosed that he had collected Rs. 30 lakhs from the petitioner under different schemes.

2. On the prayer made on behalf Chief of the investigating agency, the Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, sent the petitioner to police custody on 31st May, 2009. After the expiry of the said period of two days, a prayer was made for extension of police custody which was allowed for a further period of two days dated by the learned . Magistrate by his order dated 2nd June, 2009. Further prayer for custodial interrogation was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, who, however, granted permission to the investigating officer to interrogate the petitioner in the. Central Jail, Kamrup, Guwahati. On the same day, the learned Magistrate also rejected the petitioner’s prayer for grant of bail.

3. While the investigation was pending- with the State Police, the National Investigating Agency constituted under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2008 Act”) took over the investigation on 5th June, 2009 and the case was renumbered as N.I.A. Case No.1 of 2009. A separate First Information Report was also filed by the National Investigating Agency (hereinafter referred to as “NIA) In the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup. On 6th June, 2009, the prayer made by NIA for further ten days’ custody of the petitioner was allowed by the learned Magistrate. A similar prayer made on 15th June, 2009, was rejected on 29th June, 2009. The learned Magistrate also rejected the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner ala, wi th the co-accused. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed a bail application before the Guwahati High Court’ and while the same was pending, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, issued a notification _ dated 9th July, 2009, in exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter• referred to as the “1967 Act”), declaring the DHD(J) along with its factions, wings and front organizations to be an “unlawful association”.

4. On 29th July, 2009, the learned Single Judge of the Guwahati High Court dismissed the petitioner’s bail application on the ground of jurisdiction. The petitioner filed another bail application before the Sessions Judge (Special Court), Kamrup, Guwahati which was rejected on 14th August, 2009. Thereafter, on an application made by the NIA on 27th August, 2009, the Sessions Judge (Special Court), Kamrup, by its order dated 28th “August, 2009 extended the period for completion of investigation by a further period of 60 days In terms of Section 43D(2) (b) of the 1967 Act as amended, read with Section 167 Cr.P.C. The said order of the learned Single Judge, Special Court, Kamrup, was challenged by the petitioner herein before the Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court on 29th May, 2009, under Section 21 of the 2008 Act by way of Criminal Appeal No.148/2009. The same was dismissed on 19th September, 2009 against which the present Special Leave Petition has been filed.

5. Mr. Pradip Ghosh, learned Senior Advocate, who appeared in support of the Special Leave Petition questioned the order of the High Court, and also that of the learned sessions Judge (Special Court) mainly on two grounds. Learned counsel firstly that of the learned Sessions Judge urged that the allegations made against the petit