Magistrate has no jurisdiction to extend time under first proviso in Sec. 43-D(2)(b), so far as all offences under UAPA are concerned, says SC while granting default bail

feature-top

Read Judgement: Sadique & Ors vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, September 10, 2021: Quoting the law declared by the Supreme Court in Bikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, the three Judge Bench of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bela M. Trivedi has ruled that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to extend time under first proviso in Sec 43-D (2)(b), so far as all offences under UAPA are concerned.

The Apex Court observed 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 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The observation came pursuant to a plea by four persons accused under UAPA, challenging an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court confirming an order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Bhopal granting investigating agency extension of time u/s 43D(2)(b) to complete the probe.

The background of the case was that after completion of actual custody, the appellants sought for bail u/s 167(2) of CrPC contending that that no chargesheet was filed by the Investigating Agency within the stipulated time period of 90 days.

Since those applications were rejected by the CJM, the matter reached High Court, whereby it was held that since the CJM had passed an appropriate order, the period available for the investigating machinery to complete the investigation stood extended to 180 days, and hence, appellants were held not entitled to relief of bail.

After considering the arguments, the Apex Court noted that in case of Bikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, this court had observed 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”.

Hence, the Top Court held the appellants entitled to the relief of default bail as prayed for, and directed the Trial Court to release them on bail subject to such conditions as the Trial Court may deem appropriate to impose to ensure their presence and participation in the pending trial.

Add a Comment