The Supreme Court set aside the Calcutta High Court's judgment, which had quashed proceedings involving UAPA charges against Jayeea Das. The case arose from the recovery of incriminating materials linked to the CPI (Maoist) from an abandoned backpack in Kolkata. The Court clarified that since the West Bengal Government had not constituted a Special Court under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, the City Sessions Court had the jurisdiction to permit the addition of UAPA charges. The judgment restores the proceedings and reaffirms that procedural errors related to remand extensions under UAPA do not entitle the accused to default bail if no such application is filed before the charge sheet is submitted.

1. FIR and Initial Charges:

• A complaint filed in January 2022 led to the recovery of a bag containing posters and other materials linked to CPI (Maoist) activities.
• FIR No. 01 of 2022 was registered at STF Police Station, Kolkata under various sections of the IPC.

2. Addition of UAPA Charges:

• On 7th April 2022, based on preliminary investigations, the City Sessions Court permitted the inclusion of UAPA sections (16, 18, 18B, 20, 38, and 39) to the existing IPC charges.

3. High Court's Quashing of UAPA Charges:

• The respondent challenged the inclusion of UAPA charges in the Calcutta High Court, which quashed the proceedings on 11th May 2023. The Court ruled that only a Special Court constituted under the NIA Act could take cognizance of UAPA charges.

4. Supreme Court's Reversal:

• The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's judgment, holding that since the West Bengal Government had not constituted a Special Court under Section 22 of the NIA Act, the City Sessions Court had proper jurisdiction.
• The Supreme Court also rejected the contention that the accused should be granted default bail, as no such application was made within the stipulated period.

Legal Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Indian Penal Code (IPC):

   • Sections 121A, 122, 123, 124A, 120B: Offenses related to conspiracy and sedition.

2. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA):

   • Sections 16, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39: Offenses related to terrorist acts and support for unlawful organizations.
   • Section 43D: Special provisions for the extension of detention during investigation.

3. National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act:

   • Section 22: Power of the State to designate courts for UAPA trials.
   • Section 16: Jurisdiction of Special Courts under the NIA Act.

Ratio Decidendi:

The ratio of the judgment rests on the interpretation of Section 22(3) of the NIA Act, which provides that, in the absence of a designated Special Court, the Court of Sessions within the division where the offense occurred has jurisdiction to try UAPA cases. The judgment clarifies that procedural irregularities in remand do not automatically result in default bail unless specifically requested within the statutory time frame.

Subjects:

#UAPA #Criminal Law #Jurisdiction #NIAAct #DefaultBail #CPI_Maoist