The Karnataka High Court recently denied default bail to a person accused of having links to the terrorist organisation Islamic State of Iraq and the Levan (ISIS) [Zuhab Hameed Shakeel Manna v. The National Investigation Agency]..Justice M Nagaprasanna rejected the petition and allowed the extension of his judicial custody under Section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. "The order extracted (order of trial court granting extension of judicial custody) contains detailed reasons assigned by the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) while filing an application extracting the contents of the report of the Investigating Officer. Therefore it is not a case where the report or the opinion of the Investigating Officer or SPP suffers from want of application of mind...In light of the statute (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act), the judgements of the Apex Court interpreting Section 43D(2)(b) of the Act, the report of the Investigating Officer, the application of the SPP and the order of extension of judicial custody, what would unmistakably emerge is that, the report of the Investigating Officer is in consonance with the provisions of the Act, so is the application filed by the SPP," the judgment said..The petitioner was charged with offences under Sections 120B (punishment of criminal conspiracy) and 125 (waging war against any Asiatic power in alliance with the Government of India) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 17 (punishment for raising funds for terrorist act) 18 (punishment for conspiracy) and 18B (punishment for recruiting of any person or persons for terrorist act) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The accused-petitioner was working in Saudi Arabia, and was taken into custody there on the request of the National Investigation Agency. He was then deported to India, where he was charged with offences on the allegation that he is affiliated with banned terrorist organisations, and had entered a criminal conspiracy to radicalise and motivate gullible Muslim youths to join ISIS, and had travelled to raise funds for ISIS. .The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody for 30 days, which was extended from time to time. After 90 days, a report was submitted for extension of custody to 180 days. The petitioner objected on the grounds that judicial custody should not be extended as the chargesheet was not filed within 90 days as is required in law, and sought bail under Section 167(2) (when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours- on the expiry of period of ninety days accused person shall be released on bail) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). However, extension of judicial custody to 180 days was granted and the bail application was denied by the special NIA court. The petitioner then approached High Court challenging the extension and the rejection of bail. .The High Court noted that the extension of custody was obtained under Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA which provides that if it is not possible to complete investigation within 90 days, the Court may extend the period up to 180 days. The special court had passed a detailed order allowing the application for extension, the High Court observed. .The contention that the order of extension suffered from want of application of mind is unacceptable, as it contained detailed reasons assigned by the Special Public Prosecutor, the single-judge noted. .The High Court referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Surendra Pundlik Gadling and State v. Shakul Hameed, which stated that when there is an application of mind by the public prosecutor that has been accepted by the court, the accused is not entitled to default bail."Undoubtedly the request of an IO for extension of time is not a substitute for the report of the public prosecutor but since we find that there has been, as per the comparison of the two documents, an application of mind by the public prosecutor as well as an endorsement by him, the infirmities in the form should not entitle the respondents to the benefit of a default bail when in substance there has been an application of mind," the Court said. .Thus, as the report of the Investigating Officer, the application of the Special Public Prosecutor and the order of extension of judicial custody were held as being in consonance with provisions of the UAPA, the petition was rejected. .Advocate Usman P represented the petitioner. .[Read Order]
The Karnataka High Court recently denied default bail to a person accused of having links to the terrorist organisation Islamic State of Iraq and the Levan (ISIS) [Zuhab Hameed Shakeel Manna v. The National Investigation Agency]..Justice M Nagaprasanna rejected the petition and allowed the extension of his judicial custody under Section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. "The order extracted (order of trial court granting extension of judicial custody) contains detailed reasons assigned by the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) while filing an application extracting the contents of the report of the Investigating Officer. Therefore it is not a case where the report or the opinion of the Investigating Officer or SPP suffers from want of application of mind...In light of the statute (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act), the judgements of the Apex Court interpreting Section 43D(2)(b) of the Act, the report of the Investigating Officer, the application of the SPP and the order of extension of judicial custody, what would unmistakably emerge is that, the report of the Investigating Officer is in consonance with the provisions of the Act, so is the application filed by the SPP," the judgment said..The petitioner was charged with offences under Sections 120B (punishment of criminal conspiracy) and 125 (waging war against any Asiatic power in alliance with the Government of India) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 17 (punishment for raising funds for terrorist act) 18 (punishment for conspiracy) and 18B (punishment for recruiting of any person or persons for terrorist act) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The accused-petitioner was working in Saudi Arabia, and was taken into custody there on the request of the National Investigation Agency. He was then deported to India, where he was charged with offences on the allegation that he is affiliated with banned terrorist organisations, and had entered a criminal conspiracy to radicalise and motivate gullible Muslim youths to join ISIS, and had travelled to raise funds for ISIS. .The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody for 30 days, which was extended from time to time. After 90 days, a report was submitted for extension of custody to 180 days. The petitioner objected on the grounds that judicial custody should not be extended as the chargesheet was not filed within 90 days as is required in law, and sought bail under Section 167(2) (when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours- on the expiry of period of ninety days accused person shall be released on bail) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). However, extension of judicial custody to 180 days was granted and the bail application was denied by the special NIA court. The petitioner then approached High Court challenging the extension and the rejection of bail. .The High Court noted that the extension of custody was obtained under Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA which provides that if it is not possible to complete investigation within 90 days, the Court may extend the period up to 180 days. The special court had passed a detailed order allowing the application for extension, the High Court observed. .The contention that the order of extension suffered from want of application of mind is unacceptable, as it contained detailed reasons assigned by the Special Public Prosecutor, the single-judge noted. .The High Court referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Surendra Pundlik Gadling and State v. Shakul Hameed, which stated that when there is an application of mind by the public prosecutor that has been accepted by the court, the accused is not entitled to default bail."Undoubtedly the request of an IO for extension of time is not a substitute for the report of the public prosecutor but since we find that there has been, as per the comparison of the two documents, an application of mind by the public prosecutor as well as an endorsement by him, the infirmities in the form should not entitle the respondents to the benefit of a default bail when in substance there has been an application of mind," the Court said. .Thus, as the report of the Investigating Officer, the application of the Special Public Prosecutor and the order of extension of judicial custody were held as being in consonance with provisions of the UAPA, the petition was rejected. .Advocate Usman P represented the petitioner. .[Read Order]
