An order refusing extension for investigation under UAPA is a final order, not merely interlocutory, and must be evaluated against statutory requirements for custody extension.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant – State under Section 21 of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter “NIA Act”) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “ BNS S ”), challenging the impugned order dated 18^th November, 2024, passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge-02, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, arising out of FIR No. 301/2024 dated 15^th July, 2024, registered at P.S. Special Cell (Delhi) under Section 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “ BNS ”).

2. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected an application filed by the State seeking extension of time for concluding the investigation beyond 90 days under Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter “ UAPA ”). The Trial Court has held that there is no justification for granting further custody of the accused persons to enable completion of the investigation beyond the initial statutory period of 90 days.

The relevant portion of the impugned order is set out below:

“xxx xxx xxx

C. Said report indicating the progress of investigation and the specific reasons for detention of the accused persons beyond the period of 90 days.

Now, I proceed to examine the application of the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor regarding the third requirement as cited above.

In order to qualify the above mentioned test, the report of the Ld Addl. PP is required to satisfy following two requirements:-

(i) The progress of the investigation must be indicated in the report.

(ii) Specific reasons for detention of the accused beyond the period of 90 days must also be indicated in the report itself.

From perusal of the contents of the application, it is evident that report of the Ld. Addl. PP only shows the development and progress of the investigation but no where it discloses justification for keeping the accused persons in further custody to enable the investigating agency to complete the investigation.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court has considered view that the prosecution has failed to set out a case for extension of the statutory time period to conclude investigation and the application at hand deserves to be dismissed.

Application is disposed off accordingly.

The instant application and report be kept in a sealed envelope. (Reliance is placed upon the observations made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Zeeshan Qamar v. State NCT of Delhi 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1114.)”

Brief Background

3. The brief background of this case is that on 15^th July, 2024, FIR No. 301/2024 under Section 61 of BNS was registered at P.S. Special Cell (Delhi). It is stated that during investigation Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 , Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 , and Sections 16, 17, and 18 of the UAPA were added to the said FIR. The said FIR was registered on the basis of secret inputs received by the Special Cell (Delhi) that a highly radicalized Jharkhand based group, along with certain sympathizers based in/around Delhi, were conspiring/planning a terror attack. On the basis of the said inputs, surveillance was launched by the Special Cell (Delhi) and as per the FIR, the said group was at an advanced stage of procuring sophisticated weapons in furtherance of their conspiracy.

4. As part of the investigation, sometime in August, 2024, various raids were conducted in different places, including in Rajasthan, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh. It is state