In a decisive move, the Supreme Court quashed the default bail granted to an individual accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”). The Delhi police’s appeal found favor with the court, which criticized the High Court for its seemingly lax approach to the matter.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal asserted that the High Court erred in granting default bail, emphasizing that the conditions specified under Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA were met in this case. This section grants discretionary power to the court to extend the investigation time up to 180 days upon the Public Prosecutor’s application.
The court highlighted the misplacement of reliance by the High Court on a judgment under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (“TADA”) instead of considering the specific provisions and judgments under UAPA.
The case revolved around Lovepreet, accused of being a Khalistani sympathizer, facing charges under UAPA, IPC, and the Arms Act. Despite an extension of the investigation time, the respondent sought default bail before the completion of the extended period, a request rejected by the Trial Court but granted by the High Court.
The Supreme Court scrutinized the Trial Court’s order, noting that the extension was sought for obtaining mandatory sanction still pending before the Government of NCT Delhi. The High Court’s finding that the sanction had been received prior to the extension application was deemed incorrect.
Delving into the legalities, the court discussed Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA, concluding that the Public Prosecutor had adequately detailed the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the respondent’s continued detention in the extension application.
The court emphasized that the alleged offense involved terrorist activities with nationwide implications, urging a serious consideration of the case. It also chastised the High Court for misplacing reliance on a TADA-related judgment, emphasizing the distinctions between UAPA and TADA provisions.
In a final verdict, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed the immediate custody of the respondent, if not already in custody. The case was identified as State of NCT of Delhi v. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely, SLP(CRL.) No.2503/2021. The court’s stance underscores the gravity of UAPA terrorism cases, signaling a vigilant approach in dispensing justice.
