Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh Samra @ Jasbir vs National Investigation Agency

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 448

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALA
Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh Samra @ Jasbir – Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mugdha, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Mr. Sangram Saron, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjay Jain, A.S.G. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv. Ms. Deepabali Dutta, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Samar Singh Kachhwaha, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

Judgement Key Points

The judgment notes that the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, granted extension of investigation time from 90 to 180 days after giving an opportunity of hearing to all accused persons. (!)

It records that on 05.04.2021, after taking cognizance, the Special Court issued notices to the accused persons. (!)

It observes that the hearing on the prosecution's extension application conformed to natural justice principles, as accused persons were represented and arguments heard. (!)

In the context of extension applications under the proviso to Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA, it states that opportunity of hearing must be given to accused persons before extending time up to 180 days. (!)

JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J:

1. As the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are common and the challenge is also to the self-same order passed by the High Court, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. These appeals by special leave are at the instance of five under trial accused charged with having committed offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’), Sections 17, 18, 18B and 20 respectively of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, ‘the UAPA’) and Sections 4 and 5 respectively of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short, ‘the 1908 Act’) and are directed against the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 26.04.2022 in CRA-D No. 47 of 2021 (O&M) by which, the High Court dismissed the appeal and thereby declined to release the accused persons on default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.

3. The seminal issues falling for the consideration of this Court may be formulated as under:-

(i) Whether an accused is entitled to seek default bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Proc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 448

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALAJudgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh Samra @ Jasbir – AppellantVersusNational Investigation Agency – Respondent

Cases Referred (19)

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALA
Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh Samra @ Jasbir – Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency – Respondent