SC sets aside Delhi HC's order granting default bail to UAPA accused

New Delhi: The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's order allowing default bail to an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, saying the matter related to terrorist activities having pan India impact should not be taken lightly.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal ordered forthwith custody of Raj Kumar alias Lovepreet alias Lovely, after finding the police had already filed the charge sheet prior to extended time granted to them for the purpose.

The court also noted during the course of investigation, one Gurtej Singh had been arrested who had links with Pakistan-based terrorists and had been planning to go to Pakistan for weapons-training along with his associate respondent Rajkumar alias Lovely and others.

"One more aspect to be considered is the nature of offence which involved terrorist activities having not only pan India impact but also impact on other enemy States. The matter should not have been taken so lightly," the bench said.

The Delhi government filed an appeal against the HC's order of February 11, 2021, granting default bail to the accused under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The court also pointed out that under Section 43 D(2)(b) of the UAPA, the extension for investigation could be granted up to a maximum period of 180 days for specific reasons.

The High Court failed to consider the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of 'State of Maharashtra vs Surendra Pundlik Gadling and others' (2019) related to extension of time for filing charge sheet but had relied on the judgment in case of 'Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others vs the State of Maharashtra and others' (1994) relating to provisions of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, the bench said.

The bench noted the High Court also committed an error in recording that the sanction was already obtained before filing of the application in November, 2020 for extension of time to file the charge sheet.

The said fact is not correct as the public prosecutor had clearly mentioned that the sanction under section 45(1) of UAPA had been received from Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and was attached with the case file. However, the sanction under section 45(2) of UAPA was awaited from GNCT Delhi and that the sanction under section 39 of the Arms Act was to be obtained after the results from the FSL was received, the bench said.

"We are, therefore, of the view that the reason mentioned in the HC order that the application had been filed for extension without any valid basis as the sanction had already been granted, was not correct," the bench said.

The accused here was arrested on June 18, 2020 after registration of an FIR by Delhi police Special Cell on June 16, 2020 under various provisions of the UAPA.