The legality of police custody under the National Investigation Agency Act was recognized, emphasizing the need for compliance with procedural requirements for requesting custody beyond initial periods.

Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J.

The challenge raised in this appeal, filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 , is directed against the order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the Special Court for the trial of NIA cases (Ernakulam). By the said order, the application filed by the Investigating Officer for police custody of the appellant was allowed, and police custody was granted from 12:30 p.m. on 27.05.2025 till 5:00 p.m. on 31.05.2025. The appellant underwent police custody and was thereafter remanded back to judicial custody on 31.05.2025. The instant appeal was however filed only on 23.06.2025. The contention of the appellant is that the order remanding him to police custody invoking powers under Section 43D (2) is illegal. Though the issues posed before us are purely academic, we shall address the issues raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Since the issues raised are purely legal in nature, an elaborate narration of the facts may not be necessary. Suffice it to state that the appellant is the 20th accused in R.C.No.02/2022/NIA/KOC, registered for offences punishable under Sections 120B , 34, 109, 115, 118, 119, 143, 144, 147, 148, 449, 153A, 341, 302, 201, and 212 r/w. Section 149 and 120B r/w. Section 3 02 of the Indian Penal Code , Sections 3 (a), (b), and (d) r/w. Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 , Sections 13, 16, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 22C, 23, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 , and Section 25 (1)(a) of the Arms Act .

3. The appellant was arrested by the NIA on 04.04.2025 and produced before the Special Court, where he was initially remanded to judicial custody. On 08.04.2025, an application was filed seeking police custody of the appellant for a period of 7 days. The Special Court allowed the application and granted police custody from 09.04.2025 to 15.04.2025.

4. Thereafter, on the 53rd day of his arrest, the NIA preferred Annexure-A4 application for further police custody before the Special Court invoking the second proviso to Section 43D (2)(b) UAPA for a period of 4 days. Since the application was preferred after 30 days raising various contentions, the appellant filed Annexure-A5 objection. The appellant contends that the learned Special Court without considering the objection and without taking note of the fact that such an application is not maintainable allowed the application by the impugned order. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that inSenthil Balaji v. State, [ [(2024) 3 SCC 51] ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while expressing doubts over the correctness of the dictum in CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni , [ [(1992) 3 SCC 141] ], referred the matter to a larger Bench. It is further submitted that there has been non-compliance with (2)(b) of the , in as much as the NIA failed to assign any specific reasons for seeking police custody at a belated stage and did not offer any explanation for the delay in filing the application. According to the learned counsel, the use of the conjunction “and” in the said provision mandates that both conditions, providing reasons for custody and explanation for delay, must be satisfied cumulatively.

6. In response, Sri. Sasthamangalam Ajithkumar, the learned counsel for the respondent, contended that this Court need not undertake a purely academic exercise. He submits that police custody was, in fact, granted within the initial 30-day period. Relying on the judgment in Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency , [(2022) 13 SCC 542] , it is urged that there is no embargo on filing a subsequent app