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.

JUDGMENT :

P.N. PRAKASH, J.

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, to call for the entire records in connection with impugned further remand extension order passed by the learned Special Judge for NIA cases/Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial for Bomb Blast Cases, Poonamallee, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.191 of 2019 dated 06.05.2019 in R.C.No.06/2019/NIA/DLI and set aside the same.)

1. The point for consideration in this Criminal Appeal is, the validity of the report dated 29.04.2019, submitted by the Special Public Prosecutor under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short “the UAP Act”) and the consequent acceptance of the same by the Special Court vide the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.191 of 2019 dated 06.05.2019.

2. One Ramalingam was brutally attacked on 05.12.2019 in Thiruvidaimarudur by an unlawful assembly, resulting in the local police registering a case in Thiruvidaimarudur P.S.Crime No.17 of 2019 under Sections 341, 294(b) and 307 IPC. After Ramalingam succumbed to the injuries, the case was altered to one under Section 302 IPC.

3. During the course of investigation, it came to light that Ramalingam was a Hindu activist and he was fatally attacked by Muslim fanatics. The Investigating Officer incorporated the penal provisions of the UAP Act in the case and the Central Government issued a direction under Section 6(4) read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, transferring the case to the file of the National Investigation Agency (NIA), New Delhi. The case was re-registered as R.C.No.06/2019/NIA/DLI on 07.03.2019 and the NIA took up the investigation of the case on 25.04.2019.

4. In the meanwhile, the accused in this case were arrested on various dates. The 90 days period for default bail prescribed under Section 167 Cr.P.C. for some of the arrested accused was to expire on 06.05.2019. Therefore, the Special Public Prosecutor filed a report dated 29.04.2019 under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAP Act, for extending the period of judicial custody. The accused also filed their counter to the report of the Special Public Prosecutor.

5. After hearing either side, the Special Court vide impugned order dated 06.05.2019, accepted the request of the Special Public Prosecutor and extended the remand period beyond 90 days. This is under challenge by the accused in this appeal.

6. Heard Mr.I.Abdul Basith, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

7. Mr.Abdul Basith made the following submissions :

(a) That the report of the Special Public Prosecutor under Section 43(D)(2) of the UAP Act did not substantiate the progress of the investigation and it is based on assumptions and casual assertions without anything more. (b) There are 10 accused in the case who have been remanded to judicial custody. The report of the Special Public Prosecutor ought to have covered the case of each of the accused to justify his further detention beyond 90 days.

(c) Though the investigation was transferred to the NIA on 07.03.2019, the actual investigation began only on 24.03.2019 by the NIA and this delay cannot be put against the accused.

(d) Strong reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bikramjit Singh Vs. The State of Punjab [(2020) 10 SCC 616], wherein, the Supreme Court has held the importance of the right to default bail guaranteed by Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

(e) The Special Public Prosecutor ought not to have filed the report seeking extension of judicial custody before the expiry of 90 days.

8. Per contra, Mr.Karthikeyan refuted the aforesaid contentions and placed strong reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Surendra Pundlik Gadling and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 178] and State by the Superintendent of Police, NIA, Kochi Vs. Shakul Hameed [(2019) 6 SCC 350].

9. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.

10. A