Back
Supreme Court: Police Statement of '' Does Not Trigger for UAPA Accused
In a significant ruling that clarifies the scope of
under the
, the
on Monday set aside a
judgment that had granted
to two accused persons. The bench, comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, held that a mere statement by the investigating agency that
"
exists to file a
"
does not mean the investigation is complete, and therefore cannot confer an indefeasible
on the accused.
The Case So Far
The appeal arose from an investigation by the , into alleged unlawful activities by members of the . The accused, Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan @ Moin Mistri and Asif Aminul Hussain Khan Adhikari (since deceased), were arrested on , and remanded to custody. The statutory period of 90 days for filing a expired on . The Special Judge granted an initial 30-day extension (until ) and then a further 15-day extension (until ).
The accused challenged the second 15-day extension before the
, which held it invalid on the ground that the prosecution's own application stated
"there is enough evidence to file a
"
– indicating the
. The High Court concluded that the extension was sought only to await sanction under Section 45 UAPA, which it ruled is an impermissible ground. It granted
.
The Supreme Court's Intervention
Disagreeing with this reasoning, the Supreme Court categorically stated that a document must be read as a whole, not in piecemeal. Writing for the bench, Justice Chandrashekhar observed:
"A statement made by the prosecution that there is for filing the cannot be interpreted by the Court as if the investigation in the case was complete. Such a statement made on behalf of the prosecution cannot be used against it to curtail the power of the ATS to complete the investigation or carry out further investigation. The High Court committed a serious error in construing a solitary statement made in the second extension application to hold that the ."
The Court emphasised that the investigation of a crime is the exclusive domain of the police, and the judiciary cannot decide when an investigation should stop. The second extension application in fact sought additional time to analyse and collate data from the , bank statements, and other electronic evidence – all of which are integral parts of the investigation.
: Not Part of Investigation
The High Court had premised its decision on the ground that an extension sought only for obtaining sanction under Section 45 UAPA is invalid. The Supreme Court clarified that this discussion was "". Section 45 UAPA imposes a bar on taking without prior sanction, but that bar does not apply to filing a . The Court noted:
"The entire discussion on was . The High Court took a detour bypassing the gist of the prosecution's case for extension of time to file the ... The decision of the High Court to interfere with the order dated granting second extension of time to the prosecution for filing the is and liable to be set aside."
Precedents Reaffirmed
The Supreme Court relied on its earlier judgment in State of NCT of Delhi v. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely (2024), which upheld extensions of time when sanctions and FSL reports were awaited. It distinguished cases like and , noting that those judgments did not deal with the question of whether a court can declare an investigation complete based on a in an extension application.
: A Fundamental Right, But Not Automatic
While acknowledging that the is a facet of , as held in and , the Court made it clear that this right accrues only upon the actual default of the investigating agency in completing the investigation. When a valid extension has been granted, the is correspondingly extended. In this case, the Special Judge's order granting the second extension was legally valid, so no arose on .
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the 's appeal, set aside the 's judgment, and restored the orders of the Special Judge. Consequently, the granted to the accused stands cancelled. The first respondent (Moin Mistri) must surrender within 30 days and may apply for regular bail if advised.
