JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J. These appeals raise common issues regarding the validity of extension of the period of detention beyond 90 days under Section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short, `UAPA.). By Crl.A. 405/2021, appellant Zeeshan Qamar challenges the order dated 9th December, 2021 passed by the Trial Court, whereby the learned Special Judge extended the period of investigation and judicial custody of Zeeshan Qamar till 11th February 2022. By Crl.A. 207/2021 and Crl.M.C. 1479/2021, appellant Mushab Anwar and petitioner Dr. Rahees Rasheed respectively challenge the order dated 10th June, 2021 passed by the Trial Court in RC-05/2021/NIA/DLI extending appellant's judicial custody and period of investigation. Petitioner Dr. Rahees Rasheed also challenges the order of Trial Court dated 16th June, 2021, which extends petitioner's judicial custody and period of investigation. By Crl.A. 208/2021 and Crl.A. 214/2021, appellants Mushab Anwar and Dr. Rahees Rasheed respectively, challenge the order dated 16th June, 2021 whereby the period of detention and investigation was extended from 90 days to 180 days and the application for default bail under Section 167 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C..) read with 43D(2)(b) UAPA was rejected by the Trial Court, and the appellants were sent to judicial custody for 30 days till 16th July 2021. By Crl.A. 2/2022, appellants Mizha Siddeeque and Shifa Haris challenge order of Trial Court dated 11th November, 2021, extending the period of detention and investigation to 180 days and also the order dated 29th November, 2021 rejecting the application of appellants seeking statutory bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 43D (2) (b) UAPA. By Crl.A. 59/2022, Crl.A. 79/2022, Crl.A. 80/2022 and Crl.A. 89/2022, appellants Mohd. Manan Dar @ Manan, Hanan Gulzar Dar, Zamin Adil Bhat and Haris Nisar Langoo respectively challenge the order dated 17th January 2022 of the Trial Court whereby the period of detention and investigation was extended for a period of 90 days to 180 days.

2. Contentions on behalf of the appellants:

2.1. Ms. Shahrukh Alam, learned counsel for appellant Zeeshan Qamar contended that extension of period of detention beyond a period of 90 days can be done only if the Trial Court is satisfied with the Public Prosecutor's report indicating the progress of investigation and specific reasons for detention of accused beyond a period of 90 days and such extension can be granted only where it is not possible to complete the investigation within the initial period of 90 days. It was contended that the phrase "not possible" has to be interpreted as "impossible" with an element of finality and the prosecution must establish a higher threshold to obtain extension of period of investigation. Further, Section 43D (2) UAPA refers to Section 167 Cr.P.C. as the genesis for period of investigation and consequent remand. It was contended that from a perusal of said Sections, only upon the satisfaction of the Magistrate of the existence of adequate grounds can such extension be granted. Based on the data available on the NIA website, it is contended that in almost all UAPA cases an extension of period was sought beyond 90 days which has been granted by the Court. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of Privy Council reported as (1926) AC 497, Hirji Mulji & Ors. vs. Cheong Yue Steamship Co. Ltd. to impress that the doctrine of impossibility relates to special exceptions as the justice demands and not in every case. Reference was made to Advanced Law Lexicon, Black's Law Dictionary and illus