Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
IN THE MATTER OF:Mohd Rizwan Ashraf – Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the criminal appeal and initial orders (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments challenging the extension of custody based on procedural issues (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. contention regarding completeness of investigation and judicial scrutiny (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. arguments made by the prosecution for necessity of extended detention (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. court's evaluation of the legal standards and application of law (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. findings on investigation and justification for continued detention (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 7. final dismissal of appeal (Para 39) |
JUDGMENT :
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been filed by the Appellant, challenging the Orders dated 24.02.2024, 26.02.2024 & 11.03.2024, passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. Trial Court”), in RC 29 of 2023.
2. Vide Order dated 24.02.2024, the Ld. Trial Court had extended the period of detention of the Appellant and his co-accused under Section 43D(2) of the Un
Court affirmed the need for detailed justification in extending custody under UAPA, emphasizing individual assessment and validating the ongoing necessity of detention for national security investiga....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court may grant an extension of the investigation period and custody of the accused if the reasons provided by the investigating agency ju....
Right to life and liberty is one of integral part of Constitution of India and it is the most sacred Fundamental Right – Custody of people in name of various enactments and without adhering to prompt....
In cases involving UAPA, a valid extension of investigation period negates the right to default bail, contingent on statutory compliance.
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC is a fundamental right, requiring prompt investigation and adherence to procedural safeguards for extensions beyond 90 days.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the extension of the remand period beyond 90 days under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UA(P) Act is within the legislative intent and does not perm....
Point of Law : Request of an IO for extension of time is not a substitute for the report of the public prosecutor but since we find that there has been, as per the comparison of the two documents, an....
The validity of the report under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAP Act and the right to default bail guaranteed by Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. were central legal points established in the judgment.
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
