HC upholds Session Court’s order for extension of time for investigation in Ishrat Jahan case [Read Judgment]

The Delhi HC in, Ishrat Jahan vs. State, upheld the order of the Session’s court of extending the time of investigation for 60 days till 14/08/2020 and held that all ingredients under Section 43D of UAPA were fulfilled.

Facts

Ishrat Jahan approached the court in order to set aside the trial court’s order whereby Delhi Police was granted 60 days’ time till 14/08/2020  to investigate their case. It was stated by them that they were falsely implicated during the anti-CAA protest and were sent to judicial custody (JC). They were later granted bail on 21/03/2020 but to defeat the order they were taken into police custody till 5/04/2020 and thereafter JC. Various other offences were added to the list that came into the knowledge of investigators during JC and subsequently 60 days time was given for investigation.

Petitioner’s Contention

The petitioners contended that the application filed by the PP fails a legal basis and the order needs to be set aside as speedy and fair investigation are fundamental tenets of the criminal justice system. They also contended that general investigative procedures cannot be a ground for seeking an extension of remand. W.r.t issue relating to finances, important facts were hidden from the court. Further, it was contended that despite the lockdown investigation took place, therefore there was no basis of an extension.

State’s Contention

The counsel contended that Section 43D of UAPA  is a specific provision which prescribes for extended timelines for completion of the investigation. After duly examining the report of IO, the PP applied his mind which can be proved upon perusal of the application submitted.

Court’s Ruling

1. The court iterated the findings in Syed Shahid Yousuf vs. NIA that held that “At the stage of extension of time for completion of investigation or extension of the period of detention, the accused cannot ask to see the reports of the learned Public Prosecutor”.
2. Ingredients of Section 43D as per State of Maharashtra vs. Surendra Pundlik Gadling:-

a. It has not been possible to complete the investigation within a period of 90 days.

b. A report to be submitted by the Public Prosecutor.

c. Said report indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the period of 90 days.

d. The satisfaction of the Court in respect of the report of the Public Prosecutor.

The Court ruled that all the above-mentioned ingredients were fulfilled in the present case and upheld the session court’s order for extension of the investigation.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com