ORDER

1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners/accused persons praying for a direction to the trial Court to release petitioners Abdul Jamil, Abdul Khalid, Mohammad Javed, Imran Hussain Tanwar, Khwaja Husain, Ishaq Khan, Mohammad Aakib Khan, Zuber Ahmed, Mohammad Yusuf, Tousif Ahmad Chhipa, Mohammad Samsad, Mohsin Qureshi, Shahzaad, Shakir Khan, Anawar Khan, Shaikh Naser Shaikh Sabir, Gulam Nabee, Gulam Shah and Parvez Khan Muzammil Khan on bail who are accused in the case arising out of FIR No.43/2022 of P.S. Special Task Force, Bhopal for commission of offence under sections 121A, 153A, 120B, 201 of Indian Penal Code,1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC for the sake of brevity and convenience) and sections 13(1)(b), 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Amendment 2012) (hereinafter referred to as “UAPA” for the sake of brevity and convenience). The aforesaid applicants, who are 19 in number, have challenged the orders dated 14.10.2022, 28.10.2022, 10.11.2022, 24.11.2022, 8.12.2022, 22.12.2022, 5.1.2023, 19.1.2023, 01.02.2023, 15.2.2023 and 1.3.2023.

2. The above orders allowing their judicial custody have been challenged on the ground that their judicial custody was allowed in their absence as they were neither produced in person before the Court nor through the medium of electronic video linkage.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that while passing the impugned orders learned trial Court has failed to comply with the mandate of section 167(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code’). Learned counsel placing reliance on Hon’ble apex Court judgment in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat-Criminal Appeal No.1656/2022 arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.7696/2021, Raj Narain v. Superintendent Central Jail, New Delhi-1971 AIR 178 and Bairam Muralidhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh Criminal Appeal No.1587/2014 arising out of SLP (Crl.) 1487/2012, Anil Rai v. State of Bihar- Criminal Appeal No.389/1998, Madras High Court order in Criminal Appeal No.1317 and 1319 of 2022, Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra and anr. Criminal Appeal No.689/2014 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1348/2014 has submitted that in the aforesaid cases, Hon’ble apex Court and Divisional Bench of Madras High Court held that application of prosecution for extension of time ought not to have been taken up without production of accused before the trial Court either in person or through electronic video linkage, as in aforesaid cases it has been consistently held that mere non production of accused before the Court when extension application of prosecution was taken up will suffice and it is not necessary to show prejudice. In fact, procedural safeguards play an important role in protecting the liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. It is further submitted that failure to procure the presence of the accused either physically or virtually before the Court and the failure to inform them that the application made by the Public Prosecutor for the extension of time is being considered, is not a mere procedural irregularity. It is gross illegality that violates the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the orders passed by the Special Court of extending the period of investigation and extension of their judicial custody are illegal on account of the failure of the respondent/State to produce the accused before the Special Court either physically or virtually when judicial remand was granted and when the prayer for grant of extension of time was made by the Public Prosecutor. In the light of the aforesaid pronouncement, it is prayed by learned counsel for the petitioners that aforementioned orders passed by the Special Court on aforesaid mentioned dates allowing the judicial custody of the petitioners in their absence be declared illegal, the order extendin