Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Pradeep Ram, was initially arrested in connection with FIR No. 02/2016 registered at Police Station Tandwa for offences under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387, 120-B IPC read with the Arms Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act. He was granted regular bail by the High Court on 10.03.2016. Subsequently, on 09.04.2017, offences under Sections 16, 17, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) were added. The Central Government, by order dated 13.02.2018, directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to investigate the case under the NIA Act, 2008. The NIA re-registered the FIR as RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI on 16.02.2018. The appellant, who was in custody in another case, was produced before the Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi on 25.06.2018 and remanded to judicial custody. The appellant filed a writ petition and a criminal miscellaneous petition before the High Court of Jharkhand seeking quashing of the proceedings, which were dismissed on 26.09.2018. The Supreme Court framed five issues: (i) whether bail in the original case covers newly added offences; (ii) whether re-registration by NIA is a second FIR; (iii) whether NIA can conduct further investigation after charge sheet; (iv) validity of remand order; and (v) whether Section 167 CrPC can be exercised after cognizance. The appellant argued that the earlier bail should protect him and that the re-registration was illegal. The respondents contended that the bail did not extend to UAPA offences and that NIA was entitled to further investigate. The Supreme Court held that bail does not automatically cover new offences; the accused must seek fresh bail. Re-registration by NIA is not a second FIR but a lawful change of investigating agency. NIA can conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC even after charge sheet. The Special Judge validly remanded the appellant under Section 167 CrPC during further investigation, as Section 309(2) applies only after trial commences. The appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Effect of Addition of New Offences - When an accused is on bail in a criminal case and new offences are subsequently added, the earlier bail order does not automatically cover the new offences; the accused must seek fresh bail for the newly added offences. The court held that the bail granted in the original FIR does not enure to the benefit of the accused for the newly added offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. (Paras 8-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Second FIR - Re-registration by NIA - Re-registration of an FIR by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) pursuant to a Central Government order under Section 6(5) of the NIA Act, 2008 does not amount to a second FIR; it is merely a change in nomenclature and investigating agency. The court held that the re-registration is permissible and does not violate the prohibition against multiple FIRs for the same offence. (Paras 11-15) C) Criminal Procedure - Further Investigation - Power under Section 173(8) CrPC - The NIA is entitled to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC even after a charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance taken, especially when new scheduled offences are added. The court held that further investigation is a statutory right of the investigating agency and can be carried out irrespective of the stage of the case. (Paras 16-20) D) Criminal Procedure - Remand - Section 167 CrPC vs Section 309(2) CrPC - During further investigation by NIA, the Special Judge can remand the accused under Section 167 CrPC even if cognizance was earlier taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The court held that Section 309(2) CrPC applies only after the trial has commenced, and during the period of further investigation, Section 167 CrPC is the appropriate provision for remand. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether bail granted in original FIR covers newly added offences; whether re-registration of FIR by NIA constitutes a second FIR; whether NIA can conduct further investigation after charge sheet; whether remand under Section 167 CrPC is valid after cognizance; whether power under Section 167 CrPC can be exercised after cognizance
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's judgment. The court held that the bail granted in the original FIR does not extend to the newly added offences under UAPA; the re-registration of FIR by NIA is not a second FIR; NIA is entitled to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC; the Special Judge validly remanded the appellant under Section 167 CrPC during further investigation; and Section 309(2) CrPC applies only after trial commences.
Law Points
- Bail does not enure to benefit of accused for newly added offences
- Re-registration of FIR by NIA is not a second FIR
- NIA can conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC even after charge sheet
- Remand under Section 167 CrPC is permissible during further investigation
- Section 309(2) CrPC applies only after cognizance and commencement of trial
