Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against the Bombay High Court's order granting default bail to the respondents/detenues in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The respondents were arrested in connection with the Elgar Parishad-Bhima Koregaon case, where allegations included inflammatory speeches and links to banned Maoist groups. The investigation involved voluminous electronic data and required analysis from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The initial 90-day custody period was set to expire on 3.9.2018. On 30.8.2018, the Investigating Officer submitted an application for extension of custody by another 90 days under the proviso to Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA. The application detailed the progress of investigation and reasons for delay, and was signed by the District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor. The Special Judge granted the extension on 2.9.2018 after hearing the parties. The respondents challenged this order before the Bombay High Court, which set aside the extension on the ground that the Public Prosecutor had not applied her mind, as the application was essentially filed by the Investigating Officer. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision, holding that the application substantially complied with the requirements of the proviso. The Court observed that the application contained detailed grounds and was signed by the Public Prosecutor, indicating her concurrence. The trial court had also recorded its satisfaction based on the case diary. The Supreme Court emphasized that the requirement of a report by the Public Prosecutor is not a mere formality but must show application of mind; however, in this case, the Public Prosecutor's signature on the application demonstrated her endorsement. The Court also noted that the respondents had refused to make submissions before the trial court and could not later complain of lack of opportunity. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the extension of custody was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Default Bail - Extension of Investigation Period - Section 43D(2)(b) proviso, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - The court considered whether the application for extension of custody beyond 90 days met the requirement of a report by the Public Prosecutor indicating progress and specific reasons. The High Court had held that the Public Prosecutor did not apply her mind. The Supreme Court examined the application and found that it contained detailed grounds and was signed by the Public Prosecutor, indicating her concurrence. The court held that the requirement of a report by the Public Prosecutor is not a mere formality but must show application of mind; however, in this case, the application substantially complied with the provision. (Paras 15-20) B) Criminal Procedure - Right to Default Bail - Section 167(2) CrPC read with Section 43D UAPA - The respondents claimed default bail on the ground that the extension application was not in proper form. The Supreme Court noted that the trial court had passed a reasoned order after hearing the parties and perusing the case diary. The High Court's interference was not warranted as the trial court's satisfaction was based on material on record. (Paras 21-22) C) Criminal Law - Procedural Compliance - Report of Public Prosecutor - The court clarified that the report need not be in a specific format; what is essential is that the Public Prosecutor applies her mind to the material and endorses the request. The application in this case, though filed by the Investigating Officer, was submitted through the District Government Pleader who signed it, indicating her approval. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the application presented on 30.8.2018 under the proviso to Section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 conforms to the norms laid down by that provision, specifically whether the report of the Public Prosecutor indicated the progress of investigation and specific reasons for detention beyond 90 days.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Bombay High Court order dated 24.10.2018, and upheld the trial court's order dated 2.9.2018 extending the custody of the respondents for further investigation.
Law Points
- Section 43D UAPA
- default bail
- extension of investigation period
- report of Public Prosecutor
- application of mind
- procedural compliance
- satisfaction of court
