In a recent landmark judgment, the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Supreme Court underscored the critical importance of strict adherence to the specific provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) when extending investigation periods, particularly in cases involving the gravity of charges related to national security.

The case involved an appeal against the grant of default bail to the respondent under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The charges against Raj Kumar @ Lovely included offenses under the UAPA, Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the Arms Act, making the case particularly sensitive due to its implications for national security.

The State of NCT of Delhi appealed against the High Court's decision to grant default bail to Raj Kumar @ Lovely, arguing that the extension of the investigation under the UAPA was both valid and justified. The state cited pending sanctions, awaiting forensic results, and essential procedures as reasons necessitating additional time for completing the investigation into the severe offenses.

In response, Raj Kumar @ Lovely asserted his right to default bail, contending that the extension of the investigation period had exceeded permissible limits. He argued that his continued detention was unjustified.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal, carefully examined the case. The Court observed that the High Court's reliance on a precedent related to the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) was misplaced. Emphasizing the distinct provisions of the UAPA, the Supreme Court highlighted the valid reasons provided for extending the investigation period, including pending sanctions and necessary forensic procedures.

Moreover, the Court underscored the seriousness of the charges related to national security and identified errors in the High Court's interpretation of facts and legal provisions. Consequently, the Supreme Court rejected the grant of default bail and ordered the immediate custody of the respondent, provided he was not already in custody.

In its verdict, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order, and directed the immediate custody of Raj Kumar @ Lovely.

Case: State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely,

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO....OF 2024 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NO.2503 OF 2021).

Click to read/download judgment.