STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs SURENDRA PUNDLIK GADLING

Q: Key Points

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the request or application by the Investigating Officer for extension of the investigation period beyond 90 days is not a substitute for the mandatory report of the Public Prosecutor, which must independently indicate the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond 90 days, demonstrating the Public Prosecutor's application of mind. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) However, where there is substantive compliance—evidenced by the Public Prosecutor's endorsement, scrutiny of investigation materials, and detailed articulation of progress and compelling reasons for extension (such as voluminous data analysis, pending forensic reports, financial trails, and conspiracy links)—mere infirmities in the form of the report (e.g., styled as an application by or through the Investigating Officer) do not entitle the accused to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC as modified. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) The court's satisfaction is to be based on substance over technical form, ensuring the Public Prosecutor acts independently, not as a mere conduit. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 158

RANJAN GOGOI, L. NAGESWARA RAO, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Appellant
Versus
SURENDRA PUNDLIK GADLING – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mr. Anoop Kandari, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. K. V. Muthu Kumar, AOR Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. Ms. Tripti Tandon, Adv. Ms. Arushi Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Barun Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anil Adelkar, Adv. Mr. Aakarsh Kamra, AOR Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Ms. Indira Jaising, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sunil Fernandes, AOR Ms. Nupur Kumar, Adv. Ms. Nehmat Kaur, Adv. Mr. Paras Nath Singh, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the request or application by the Investigating Officer for extension of the investigation period beyond 90 days is not a substitute for the mandatory report of the Public Prosecutor, which must independently indicate the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond 90 days, demonstrating the Public Prosecutor's application of mind. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) However, where there is substantive compliance—evidenced by the Public Prosecutor's endorsement, scrutiny of investigation materials, and detailed articulation of progress and compelling reasons for extension (such as voluminous data analysis, pending forensic reports, financial trails, and conspiracy links)—mere infirmities in the form of the report (e.g., styled as an application by or through the Investigating Officer) do not entitle the accused to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC as modified. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) The court's satisfaction is to be based on substance over technical form, ensuring the Public Prosecutor acts independently, not as a mere conduit. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

JUDGMENT

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The respondents/detenues claimed default bail in view of the failure of the appellant/State to file a charge-sheet within ninety (90) days, under the provisions of Section 43D of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) and also for seeking extension for completion of investigation, for a period of ninety (90) further days, in a manner that did not meet with the requirements of the proviso to sub-section (2)(b) of Section 43D of the said Act. The latter has become an issue of contention inasmuch as it has been argued that the endeavour of the State Government cannot be said to indicate the submission of a ‘report of the Public Prosecutor’, specifying reasons for detention beyond the period of ninety (90) days.

3. An F.I.R. was lodged by one Tushar Ramesh Damgude on 8.1.2018 at Vishrambaug Police Station, Pune under Sections 153-A, 505(1)(b), 117, & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, seeking to report an incident that occurred at Shaniwarwada, Pune on 31.12.2017. It has been alleged that between 2:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., on 31.12.2017, at Shaniwarwada, Pune, members of the ‘Kabir K

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 158

RANJAN GOGOI, L. NAGESWARA RAO, SANJAY KISHAN KAULSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA – AppellantVersusSURENDRA PUNDLIK GADLING – Respondent

Cases Referred (2)

RANJAN GOGOI, L. NAGESWARA RAO, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Appellant
Versus
SURENDRA PUNDLIK GADLING – Respondent