JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

2. Since the common questions of law and facts arise in both these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. In both these appeals, the appellant challenges the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, remanding the appellants to custody beyond the period of 90 days from the date of arrest of the appellants on the various grounds, inter alia contending that the exercise of powers of remand by the Additional Sessions Judge to be ab initio bad in law of in view of the provisions of law contained in section 49 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (hereinafter called as "POTA") as well as the law settled by the Apex Court on the point of indefeasible right of the accused to get released on bail on account of default on the part of the investigating agency to submit the charge-sheet within a period of 90 days and failure to get such period extended by further period of 90 days by the Special Court under the said provisions of law contained in section 49 of the POTA.

4. Few facts relevant for the decision in the matter are that pursuant to the registration of crime under the provisions of POTA, the accused in Criminal Appeal No. 597/2002 came to be arrested on 6-6-2002 whereas the accused in Criminal Appeal No. 676/2002 was arrested on 23-6-2002. Pursuant to the arrest of the appellants, they were remanded to the custody and it continued till the expiry of the period of 90 days without any charge-sheet being filed against the appellants. The period of 90 days expired on 3-9-2002 in case of the former while it expired on 20-9-2002 in case of the latter. Meanwhile an application for further remand of the appellant along with the application for extension of period in Appeal No. 597/2002 was filed by the respondents and the appellant was remanded till 3-10-2002. Similarly, the application for extension of remand was filed in case of the appellant in Appeal No. 676/2002 on 19-9-2002 along with an application for extension of period of detention from 90 days to 180 days on 19-9-2002 and by order dated 19-9-2002 the appellant was remanded to M.C.R. till 31-10-2002. Again the custody of the appellant was further extended till 17-10-2002 by order dated 3-10-2002. Simultaneously the appellant in the former case had filed an application for bail on 11-9-2002 and the same was dismissed by order dated 12-9-2002 whereas in the latter case, the application for bail was filed on 23-9-2002 and the same was rejected on 26-9-2002.

5. The section 49(2) of POTA, provides as under:---

"Section 167 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the modification that in sub-section (2),----

(a) the references to "fifteen days", "ninety days", and "sixty days", wherever they occur, shall be construed as references to "thirty days", "ninety days" and "ninety days", respectively; and

(b) after the proviso, the following provisos shall be inserted, namely:-

Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Special Court shall extend the said period up to one hundred and eighty days, on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of ninety days:

Provided also that if the Police Officer making the investigation under this Act, requests, for the purposes of investigation, for police custody from judicial custody of any person from judicial custody, he shall file an affidavit stating the reasons for doing so and shall also explain the delay, if any, for requesting such police custody."

6. Referring to the above provision of law, it was sought to be contended that the law clearly requires the investigation to be completed within 90 days and in case it is not so compl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document