SHOIAB AHMED MIRZA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought for quashing of the order dated 24.11.2012 passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Crime No.384/2012 of Basaveshwaranagar Police Station extending the judicial custody of the petitioners up to 180 days, on the application filed by the prosecution under Section 43D (2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, 'UA Act').

(2.) The petitioner were arrested on different dates during the investigation of the case in Cr.No.384/2012 of Basaveshwaranagar Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 153(a), 121, 120-B, 122, 379, 153-B, 307 IPC and under Sections 10, 13 and 12 of the UA Act.

(3.) The custody of the petitioners was being extended from time to time by the jurisdictional Magistrate. The petitioners filed application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., before the jurisdictional Magistrate after the expiry of 90 days of their custody seeking statutory bail alleging that within the statutory period, the Investigating Officer has not filed the final report. However, the said application was kept in abeyance on the ground that their remand has been extended up to 180 days by the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore on the application filed by the prosecution under Section 43D (2)(b) of the UA Act. Thereafter, the petitioners presented this petition questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge extending their remand up to 180 days, primarily on the ground that the impugned order is vitiated since the petitioners were not informed of about filing of such application and its consideration thereof, as required by law. In this behalf, reliance was placed on the decision of the single Bench of the Kerala High Court in Ashruff vs- State of Kerala, 2011 CrLJ 1021.