In the recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Supreme Court underscores the necessity of adhering to the specific provisions of UAPA for extending investigation periods and the gravity of charges involved.
The Supreme Court reiterates that granting bail in serious cases involving national security requires strict adherence to legal provisions and consideration of the case's gravity.
Brief Facts:
Parties Involved: State of NCT of Delhi (appellant) vs. Raj Kumar @ Lovely (respondent). Nature of Case: Appeal against the grant of default bail to the respondent under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Charges: Offenses under UAPA, IPC, and the Arms Act. The State of NCT of Delhi appealing against the High Court's decision granting default bail to Raj Kumar @ Lovely, accused of serious offenses under UAPA, IPC, and the Arms Act, citing an extension of investigation time beyond statutory limits.
Contention of the Parties:
The State of NCT of Delhi contended that the extension of the investigation under UAPA was valid and justified, citing pending sanctions, awaiting forensic results, and essential procedures necessary for completing the investigation into severe offenses.
Raj Kumar @ Lovely argued for default bail, asserting that the extension of investigation time had exceeded permissible limits, rendering his continued detention unjustified.
Observation of the Court:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's reliance on a precedent related to TADA was misplaced, emphasizing the distinct provisions of UAPA and the valid reasons provided for extending the investigation period. The Court highlighted the seriousness of the charges related to national security and found errors in the High Court's interpretation of facts and legal provisions, leading to the rejection of default bail and ordering the respondent's immediate custody.
The Decision of the Court:
Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the immediate custody of the respondent if not already in custody.
Case Title: State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely, 2024 Latest Caselaw 8 SC
Case No.: [to be filled] of 2024, arising out of SLP(CRL.) No. 2503 of 2021
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 8 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
