Madras High Court: While considering the instant appeal filed under S. 21(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 challenging the extension of remand order issued by NIA Special Court under S. 43D (2)(b) First Proviso of UAPA Act; the Division Bench of M. Sundar* and R. Sakthivel, JJ., issued notice to the respondent, which was accepted by the Special Public Prosecutor for the NIA cases.
The counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was secured and remanded to judicial custody in connection with alleged offences under Ss. 120-B, 153-A, 153-AA of Penal Code, 1860 and Ss. 13, 17, 18, 18-B, 38 and 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It was submitted that appellant was secured and remanded to judicial custody on 09-05-2023 and that 90 days therefrom elapsed on 06-08-2023. However, a day before the elapse of the 90- days period, the NIA filed a petition under Section 43D(2)(b) First proviso of UAPA Act seeking extension of remand period from 90 days to 180 days, which was accepted by the Special Court.
It was contended that that the impugned order came to be made when the appellant was not produced before the Trial Court. The counsel relied on number or precedents including Judgebir Singh v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 543, wherein the Supreme Court in an eye-opening decision made it clear that such petitions should not be filed at the eleventh hour.
It was also submitted that the report of the Prosecutor vis-a-vis extension under Section 43D(2)(b) first proviso of UAPA Act has not been supplied to the appellant.
Perusing the facts and submissions, the Court was of the view that a prima facie case can be made out and hence issued notice to the respondents regarding the same.
[Sathik Ali v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6175, decided on 14-09-2023]
*Order by Justice M. Sundar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellant- A. Raja Mahomed
For respondent- R. Karthikeyan, Special Public Prosecutor for NIA cases
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
