Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Sharjeel Imam - Appellant
Versus
State Of NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1475 of 2020
Decided On : 10-07-2020
The challenge in this petition is to the order dated April 25, 2020 passed by the Roster Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, whereby the Court on an application / report submitted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor (''APP'' for short) extended the period of investigation for further 90 days totalling to 180 days.
Fact of the Case:
An FIR bearing no. 22/2020 is registered against the petitioner on January 25, 2020 at PS-Crime Branch, New Delhi under Section 124A/153A/505 of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC'', for short) with regard to speeches made in the area of Jamia on December 13, 2019. The said speech was shared on social media. Another speech was uploaded on twitter handle and on different websites in which he is seen addressing gathering in Aligarh Muslim University. According to the State, the petitioner is accused of offence relating to sedition, promoting enmity between groups on the ground of religion and indulging in unlawful activities to cause disaffection towards India.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the impugned order is not vitiated for want of notice from the Court to the petitioner on the application / report filed by the APP. The Court also found that the report of APP under Section 43D (2) (b) satisfies the requirement of a report under that Section. The Court further found that there were compelling reasons for extension of custody as all the material for investigation was available with the respondent since the petitioner's police custody and not enough seems to have been done since then i.e. for 56 days before the lockdown was imposed.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order is vitiated for want of notice from the Court to the petitioner on the application / report filed by the APP? 2. Whether the report of APP under Section 43D (2) (b) satisfies the requirement of a report under that Section? 3. Whether there were compelling reasons for extension of custody as all the material for investigation was available with the respondent since the petitioner's police custody and not enough seems to have been done since then i.e. for 56 days before the lockdown was imposed?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned order is not vitiated for want of notice from the Court to the petitioner on the application / report filed by the APP. The Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Dutt (Supra) to hold that the requirement of notice as propounded in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (Supra) is not a written notice giving reasons but mere production informing that the question of extension of the period for completing the investigation is being considered, is alone sufficient for the purpose. 2. The Court held that the report of APP under Section 43D (2) (b) satisfies the requirement of a report under that Section. The Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State v. Shakul Hameed Yusuf (Supra) to hold that the ingredients for extension of investigation under Section 43D(2)(b) are: (1) It has not been possible to complete investigation within the period of 90 days; (2) A report to be submitted by the Public Prosecutor; (3) The said report indicating the progress of investigation and the specific reasons for detention of the accused beyond the period of 90 days; (4) Satisfaction of the court in respect of the report of the APP. 3. The Court held that there were compelling reasons for extension of custody as all the material for investigation was available with the respondent since the petitioner's police custody and not enough seems to have been done since then i.e. for 56 days before the lockdown was imposed. The Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Kedia (Supra) to hold that compelling reasons to mean good / sufficient reasons justifying the extension of the investigation beyond a period of 90 days.
Final Decision: The petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merit and is as such dismissed.
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. - The challenge in this petition is to the order dated April 25, 2020 passed by the Roster Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, whereby the Court on an application / report submitted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor (''APP'' for short) extended the period of investigation for further 90 days totalling to 180 days. The challenge is also to the order passed on the Bail application No. 1051/2020, under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C., which was dismissed on the ground that the period of investigation has been extended.
2. The facts in brief are that an FIR bearing no. 22/2020 is registered against the petitioner on January 25, 2020 at PS-Crime Branch, New Delhi under Section 124A/153A/505 of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC'', for short) with regard to speeches made in the area of Jamia on December 13, 2019. The said speech was shared on social media. Another speech was uploaded on twitter handle and on different websites in which he is seen addressing gathering in Aligarh Muslim University. According to the State, the petitioner is accused of offence relating to sedition, promoting enmity between groups on the ground of religion and indulging in unlawful activities to cause disaffection towards India. It appears FIRs have also been registered at places like Assam, Imphal and Itanagar. The petitioner was arrested from Jehanabad, Bihar on January 28, 2020. On a transit remand he was brought to Delhi. On January 29, 2020, he was produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and was remanded to police custody for five days till February 3, 2020. On February 3, 2020, the police custody was extended for three more days till February 6, 2020. He spent six more days in police custody till February 12, 2020. The police custody was further extended till February 26, 2020.
3. It is noted that the petitioner was taken to Assam pursuant to a production warrant of the relevant Jurisdictional Magistrate in Assam which was issued for investigation in an FIR registered on the same day as the FIR in Delhi. The petitioner is currently lodged in Assam Central Jail.
4. It is noted as a fact that during the course of investigation Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (''UAPA'', for short) was further added in the case. On April 24, 2020, a whatsapp message was sent by Sh. Vijay Kumar, Investigation Officer to the Counsel for the petitioner Ms. Surabhi Dhar stating as under:
"Madam, Good evening,
A case vide FIR No. 22/2020 was registered at PS-Crime Branch, New Delhi and accused Sharjeel Imam was arrested in the case. You had filed the Vakalatnama as counsel to the accused Sharjeel Imam in the present case. Now, Section 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act has been added in the case and a request is being made in Court u/s Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act on 25.04.2020.
You, being the counsel to the accused Sharjeel Imam, are requested to appear in the court of Shri Gurvinder Pal Singh, Learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-02, Patiala House Court, New Delhi on 25.04.2020 at 11:00 AM for the same.
In case any assistance (curfew pass) is required, Kindly intimate at one.
Regards "
5. On April 25, 2020 (Annexure P-7), a request was made by the IO to the APP to make a request to the Court to extend the period of investigation for further 90 days to conclude the investigation. At 10.50 AM on April 25, 2020, the counsel for the petitioner has in response to the whatsapp message of Sh. Vijay Kumar, IO has stated as under:
"Dear Mr. Vijay Kumar, it is in reference to the application u/a 43 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act purported to be filed by you qua Sharjeel Imam in FIR no. 22/2020 PS Crime Branch. Until the Ld. Court issues notice to the accused on the said application, I cannot appear for him as I have no instructions from in this regard."
6. The APP on duty on April 25, 2020 (page 10 of the supplementary report) filed an application / repo
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
