The Supreme Court in the case of Sadique & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh held that in so far as “Extension of time to complete investigation” is concerned, the Magistrate would not be competent to consider the request and the only competent authority to consider such request would be “the Court” as specified in the proviso in Section 43-D (2) (b) of the UAPA.
Brief Facts
One of the Appellants was arrested in connection with crime registered pursuant to an FIR in respect of offences punishable under Sections 307, 34, 467, 468, 481, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act, and under certain provision of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Appellant Nos. 2 to 4 were also arrested around the same time. On 20th March 2014 while dealing with an application moved on behalf of the Investigating Machinery under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA, an appropriate extension was granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal. On completion of 90 days of their actual custody, applications on behalf of appellants were moved under Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking bail on the ground that no charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Agency within 90 days.
The said applications under Section 167(2) of the Code having been rejected by the Court of CJM, Bhopal, Revision Applications were preferred by the appellants which were also rejected by the Sessions Court, Bhopal vide order dated 09.07.2015. The matter was carried further by filing a criminal case under Section 482 of the Code. The High Court by its judgment which is presently under challenge rejected the prayer. It was observed by the High Court that since the CJM, Bhopal had passed an appropriate order on 20th March 2014, the period available for the Investigating Machinery to complete the investigation stood extended to 180 days, and as such the applications preferred by the appellants under Section 167(2) of the Code were not maintainable and that the appellants were not entitled to the relief as prayed for.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Hon’ble Court at the outset, made a reference to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Bikramjit Singh v. the State of Punjab wherein it was held that,
“under the aforesaid scheme what becomes clear is that so far as all offences under the UAPA are concerned, the Magistrate’s jurisdiction to extend time under the first proviso in Section 43-D(2)(b) is non-existent, “the Court” being either a Sessions Court, in the absence of a notification specifying a Special Court, or the Special Court itself.”
The Court opined that in so far as “Extension of time to complete investigation” is concerned, the Magistrate would not be competent to consider the request and the only competent authority to consider such request would be “the Court” as specified in the proviso in Section 43-D (2)(b) of the UAPA. In view of the law laid down in the above-mentioned case law, the Supreme Court accepted the plea raised by the appellants and held them entitled to the relief of default bail as prayed for.
Held
The appeal was allowed. The appellants were directed to be produced before the concerned Trial Court and the Trial Court was directed to release them on bail subject to such conditions as the Trial Court might deem appropriate to impose to ensure their presence and participation in the pending trial.
Case Details
Case Name: Sadique & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Date of Decision: September 7, 2021
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
