Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, VIKRAM NATH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Naser Bin Abu Bakr Yafai – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1165, 1166 of 2021
Decided On : 20-10-2021
.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details on the investigation and charge-sheet filed by the ats. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. legal challenges posed by the appellants regarding jurisdiction. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. arguments regarding jurisdiction under nia act and actions of ats. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. examination of nia act provisions relevant to case jurisdiction. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. implications of investigation jurisdiction under nia act. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. judicial standards for evaluating investigation commencement. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 8. clarification of court jurisdiction on trial post-investigation. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 9. limitations regarding charge-sheet filing and jurisdiction. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 10. final observations on jurisdiction and case authority. (Para 49) |
| 11. conclusions affirming the high court's ruling and dismissing appeals. (Para 50 , 51 , 52) |
JUDGMENT :
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis. They are:
| (A) | Facts |
| (B) | Submissions |
| (C) | Provisions of the NIA Act |
| (D) | Continuation of investigation by the ATS Nanded |
| (E) | CJM, Nanded's jurisdiction for remand and committal to trial |
| (F) | Conclusion |
(A) Facts
1. This batch of two appeals arises from a judgment dated 5 July 2018 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
2. On 14 July 2016, an FIR1 [C.R. No. 8 of 2016] was registered under Sections 120-B and 471 of the Indian Penal Code 18602 [“IPC”] read with Sections 13, 16, 18, 18-B, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 19673 [“UAPA”] and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act 19084 [“ES Act”]. It was registered with the Anti-Terrorism Squad 5 [“ATS”] at the Kala Chowki Police Station Mumbai on the basis of written information provided by Manik Vitthal Rao Bedre6 [A Police Inspector in ATS, Nanded Unit, Nanded, Maharashtra], against two persons: (i) Naser Bin Abu Bakr Yafai (the appellant in the first of the two appeals)7 [Criminal Appeal No. 1165 of 2021] and (ii) Farooq (who was residing in Syria). The complaint alleged that the ATS had received source information that Naser Bin Abu Bakr Yafai was in contact through the internet with members of the Islamic State8 [“IS”]/Islamic State of Iraq and Syria9 [“ISIS”]/Islamic State of Iraq and Levant10 [“ISIL”]/Daesh, terrorist organizations banned by the United Nations and the Indian Government. He was alleged to have been planning to assist Farooq (a member of IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh) in making bombs/IEDs to cause a blast during the month of Ramzan, for which he had procured the required material in July 2016. The ATS arrested four persons from Parbhani, namely: (i) Naser Bin Abu Bakr Yafai; (ii) Mohammad Shahed Khan (the appellant in the companion appeal)11 [Criminal Appeal No. 1166 of 2021]; (iii) Iqbal Ahmed and (iv) Mohammad Raisuddin.
3. On 26 August 2016, the Government of Maharashtra, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 11 read with Section 185 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 197312 [“Cr.P.C.”] issued a notification designating the Chief Judicial Magistrate13 [“CJM”], Nanded, as a Court of remand and the Court of Additional Sessions Judge 14 [“ASJ”], Nanded, as a Special Court to try cases filed by the ATS Nanded.
4. On 8 September 2016, the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Union government 15 [F. No. 11011/24/2016-IS-IV] directed the National Investigation Agency16 [“NIA”] to take over further investigation in the present case by exercising powers under Section 6(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act 2008. 17 [“NIA Act”] On 14 September 2016, the NIA Mumbai renumbered the case18 [RC-03/2016/NIA/MUM] for taking up further investigation.
5. The ATS continued with
The court ruled that the ATS could continue its investigation until the NIA officially took over, affirming the validity of the charge-sheet filed by ATS Nanded due to the absence of a designated Spe....
In the absence of a designated Special Court under the NIA Act, the jurisdictional Sessions Court has the authority to try scheduled offences under UAPA.
Scheduled offences under the U.A.P.A. Act are exclusively triable by Special Courts set up under the N.I.A. Act, and appeals from their judgments, sentences, or orders are to be heard by the Division....
Only special courts or sessions courts have the authority to extend the investigation period beyond 90 days under the UAPA, not magistrates.
Until a Special Court is constituted by State Government under sub-Section (1) of Section 22 of NIA Act, in case of registration of any offence punishable under UAPA, Court of Sessions of division in....
The main legal point established is that the bail application under the NIA Act is maintainable under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. if the case has not been notified to the Central Government as require....
The court established that the discretion to condone delays in appeals under the NIA Act extends beyond 90 days and clarified that production warrants can be issued during investigations, not just wh....
An appeal does not lie under Section 21 of the NIA Act against an order framing charges. The court emphasized the limited scope of appeal allowed by the Act and the need to consider the purpose and c....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
