MUHAMMED SHAFI.P Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Legal question raised in this appeal by an accused involved in certain offences punishable under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short, "UA(P) Act") is whether, by invoking Section 43-D(2)(b) of the said Act, the detention of an accused beyond 90 days prescribed under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, "Cr.P.C.") can be extended upto 180 days by filing an application on 68 th day of the first remand.

(2.) Appellant is the 7th accused in a case registered by the National Investigation Agency (in short, "NIA") constituted under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (in short, "NIA Act"). An application/report filed by the public prosecutor for NIA under Section 43-D(2)(b) of UA(P) Act for extension of the judicial custody of the appellant along with other accused beyond a period of 90 days was considered by the Judge, Special Court for trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam as per the impugned order dated 12.10.2020 and the request was allowed. According to the appellant, the learned Judge without properly applying his mind extended the order of detention beyond 90 days by allowing the application filed on 68th day of remand. It is argued that non-application of mind is writ large because there is no material placed before the court to find out whether the investigation against the appellant could have been completed within 90 days. Another contention raised is that a valuable right of the accused/appellant to move for default bail on the expiry of 90 days has been taken away by filing a premature application for extension of the remand period.

(3.) Heard Shri P.Vijayabhanu, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Shri P.Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India (in short, "ASG") and Shri Arjun Ambalappatta, learned Special Public Prosecutor for NIA Cases.