State Of NCT Of Delhi vs Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @Lovely

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 4

VIKRAM NATH, RAJESH BINDAL
State Of NCT Of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @Lovely – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S.V. Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mrs. Sairica Raju, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Supriya Juneja, AOR

Judgement Key Points

What is the correct interpretation of the extension of investigation period under UAPA Section 43D(2)(b) for a case under terror offences? What is the proper application of Section 167(2) CrPC (default bail) in the context of extended investigations under UAPA, and what considerations must govern grant or denial of such bail? What are the appropriate grounds and evidentiary requirements for granting further extensions of time for investigation beyond the initial ninety-day period in UAPA cases, including sanctions and progress reporting?

What is the correct interpretation of the extension of investigation period under UAPA Section 43D(2)(b) for a case under terror offences?

What is the proper application of Section 167(2) CrPC (default bail) in the context of extended investigations under UAPA, and what considerations must govern grant or denial of such bail?

What are the appropriate grounds and evidentiary requirements for granting further extensions of time for investigation beyond the initial ninety-day period in UAPA cases, including sanctions and progress reporting?

JUDGMENT :

Leave granted.

2. The State of NCT of Delhi¹[GNCTD] is in appeal assailing the correctness of the order dated 11.02.2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi granting default bail to the respondent under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973²[CrPC].

3. Relevant facts for appropriate application of this controversy are briefly stated here under:

3.1. A First Information Report³[FIR] No.154 of 2020 was registered on 16.06.2020 with Police Station, Special Cell, New Delhi against the respondent for offences under Sections 13/18/20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967⁴[UAPA], Sections 201/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860⁵[IPC], Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959⁶[The Arms Act]. Pursuant to the said FIR, the respondent was arrested on 18.06.2020.

3.2. He was initially remanded to Police Custody for a period of three days and thereafter to Judicial Custody and has since been in Mandoli Jail, New Delhi. The period of 90 days expired on 15th September, 2020. Before the expiry of the said period on the request of the Investigating Officer⁷[IO] , the time for investigation was extended by order dated 11.09.2020 for a further period of two months till

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 4

VIKRAM NATH, RAJESH BINDALState Of NCT Of Delhi – AppellantVersusRaj Kumar @ Lovepreet @Lovely – Respondent

What is the correct interpretation of the extension of investigation period under UAPA Section 43D(2)(b) for a case under terror offences?

What is the proper application of Section 167(2) CrPC (default bail) in the context of extended investigations under UAPA, and what considerations must govern grant or denial of such bail?

What are the appropriate grounds and evidentiary requirements for granting further extensions of time for investigation beyond the initial ninety-day period in UAPA cases, including sanctions and progress reporting?

VIKRAM NATH, RAJESH BINDAL
State Of NCT Of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @Lovely – Respondent