Point of Law: Extension of detention - if there is a requirement of the investigation to seek for an extension of the detention of the accused, which again would be for the interest of the investigation, there would be a very thin line differentiating the concept of right and that of a requirement.

JUDGMENT :

A.M.Bujor Barua, J

Heard Mr. D Saikia, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Satyanarayana, learned Public Prosecutor for the appellants National Investigating Agency (for short, the NIA). Also heard Mr. DK Mishra, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent Sri Akhil Gogoi (hereinafter referred to as A1) in Crl. Appeal No.121/2020 and Mr. Z Kamar, learned senior counsel for the respondents Dhirjya Konwar @ Dhajya Konwar, Manas Konwar@ Manas Pratim Konwar and Bittu Sonowal @ Bittu Sonowal @ Bitu Sonowal (hereinafter to be referred to as A2, A3 and A4 respectively) in Crl.Appeal No.130/2020.

2. The respondent A1 in Crl.Appeal No.121/2020 was arrested on 13.12.2019 by the investigating authorities in connection with Chandmari Police Station Case corresponding to FIR No.166/2019 registered under Sections 120(B)/124-A/153-A/153-B of the IPC read with Sections 18/39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967(for short, the UAPA-1967). Subsequently, the Central Government as per MHA order No.F.No.11011/62/2019/NIA dated 14.12.2019, in exercise of its power under Section 6(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, the NIA Act-2008) formed its opinion and directed the NIA to investigate the matter and, accordingly, FIR No.RC-13/2019/NIA-GUW dated 14.12.2019 was registered by the Officer-in-Charge of Police Station NIA, Guwahati.

3. In course of the investigation, the Special Public Prosecutor filed a report under Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA-1967 seeking extension of custody of the accused respondent A1 from 90 days up to 180 days for continuation of the investigation. The application of the Special Public Prosecutor under Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA-1967 was registered as Petition No.492/2020 in the Court of the learned Special Judge NIA Assam and was given its consideration by the order dated 16.03.2020.

4. In paragraph 32 of its order dated 16.03.2020, the learned Special Judge NIA, Assam was of the view that the Court of the Special Judge has to satisfy with regard to the requirement for further time for completion of the investigation and also about the need for extending the statutory remand period of the accused for the purpose of the investigation. In paragraph 33, the learned Special Judge took note of the report of the Special Public Prosecutor that the examination of some of the crucial witnesses which surfaced during the investigation were not complete and the investigating authorities were looking into the aspect of an alleged conspiracy on the part of the accused persons to destabilize the part of the country by using the platform of the passing of the Citizenship Amendment Act. In paragraph 34, the learned Special Judge was of the considered opinion that the investigating authorities had reasonable and valid grounds for not been able to complete the investigation within the period of 90 days and, therefore, had made out the requirement of additional time for completing the investigation. In paragraph 38, the learned Special Judge took note of a pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharastra reported in (1994) 4 SCC 602 and was of the view that the Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting the pari materia conclusion regarding extension of remand for additional period of investigation had held that the report of the learned Public Prosecutor has to be strictly complied and interpreted. In paragraph 39, the learned Special Judge expressed that it is a well settled principle that any law which curtails the liberty of the individual, specially, at the stage of investigation and or trial, has to be strictly interpreted and any detention as an under trial should be kept minimum to the extent possible.

5. Accordingly in paragraph 40 of the judgment dated 16.03.2020 the learned Special Judge was of the view that the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor in the report for seeking extension of the remand for fur