IMPORTANT POINT
It is only when prescribed period of completing investigation is expiring and investigation is not complete in that event application for extension of period of investigation lie.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.—The present petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to set aside the impugned orders dated 16.12.2020 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-03, Special Judge, NIA, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, whereby period of investigation and custody of above petitioners was extended for a further period of 45 days with the directions to the investigating agency to expedite the investigation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner Najmus Sakib is a twenty-two year old student of B.Sc (Honours) Computer Science at Dumkal College, Murshidabad affiliated to Kalyani University, West Bengal and he recently gave his 4th Semester examinations form Jail No. 8, Tihar Jail Complex where he is currently lodged. And petitioner Al Mamun Kamal is around 36 years old wage labourer, who last worked as a mason and driver during lockdown and his family holds the Priority Household ration card under the National Food Security Act, 2013. He is currently lodged in Jail No. 4, Tihar Jail Complex.

3. Briefly stated, it is stated in the present petitions that as per the FIR registered on 11.09.2020, the “suspected offence” was that a group of “jihadi terrorists” inspired by the globally proscribed terrorist organization Al Qaeda, consisting of more than 10 members mostly of Bengali origin were planning “anti-national/terrorist” activities at several locations in India. The present petitioners are not named in the said FIR.

4. Both the petitioners were arrested on 19.09.2020 in the early hours from their permanent residence at Murshidabad district, West Bengal. As per the seizure memo, a laptop, a phone, a personal diary, a bunch of 17 loose papers, xerox of a passbook and xerox of voter card were seized from the house of petitioner Najmus Sakib and his arrest was shown from BSF Camp, BOP, Jalangi, Murshidabad the same morning. From the house of petitioner Al Mamun Kamal, as per the seizure memo, a money receipt book in the name of a Shiksha Madarasa, three phones (including two keypad ones), and some religious literature were seized pursuant to search operation. 8 other accused persons including the named accused were arrested on 19.09.2020 the same day. 2 other persons were also subsequently arrested on 26.09.2020 and 01.11.2020. Total eleven persons have been arrested in this case so far.

5. On the same day i.e. on 19.09.2020, both the petitioners were produced before the Special Judge, NIA, City Sessions Court, Kolkata, West Bengal, where the Transit remand was granted for the accused/petitioners to be produced before NIA Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on or before 24.09.2020. On 22.09.2020, both the petitioners were produced before the Ld. Special Court, NIA Patiala House Courts, New Delhi where the applications seeking four days of police custody of both the petitioners were allowed.

6. On 26.09.2020, applications seeking thirty days judicial custody of both the petitioners were allowed and they were remanded to JC till 23.10.2020. On 22.10.2020 applications for extension of judicial custody of both the petitioners was allowed till 21.11.2020. On 21.11.2020, applications for extension of judicial custody of both the petitioners were allowed till 16.12.2020. Further on 10.12.2020 applications for extension of time for investigation and period of detention of both the petitioners were moved by the investigating officer and arguments were heard on the applications.

7. On 16.12.2020, the impugned orders were passed by the Ld. Trial Court, whereby the Ld. Trial Court extended the period of investigation and the period of detention of the petitioners herein by 45 days under S.43D(2)(b) of the UAPA. Both the petitioners were remanded to judicial custody on the same date vide a separate order. Aggrieved by these impugned orders, the present petitions have been filed.

8. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioners, Ld. SPP for the respondent and