AREEB Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, filed under Article 227of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code ("Code"), the Petitioner has sought quashing of an order passed by the Sessions Court at Mumbai extending his detention and granting extension of time to the prosecution for filing of the charge -sheet as well as an order extending his judicial custody.

(2.) In its First Information Report, being FIR No. 01 dated 28 November 2014, the Petitioner was named by National Investigation Agency ("NIA") as one of the four named accused along with other unknown persons for having committed offences under Ss. 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ("UAP Act") and Sec. 125 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC"). The offence involved joining of an international terrorist organization, the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant ("ISIL"), with an aim to indulge in terrorist activities in Syria and Iraq, which are Asiatic powers at peace with India. The FIR alleges that the Petitioner along with three named individuals and other pilgrims left the country on 25 May 2014 for Iraq on a Ziarat Visa; that upon reaching Iraq, they parted from the group of pilgrims; that they went to Syria to join ISIL; and that after undergoing training in handling of weapons and firearms, they were actively involved in terrorist acts in Iraq and Syria and waged war against the two countries which are in alliance with the Government of India.

(3.) The Petitioner's case is that the Petitioner was shown to be arrested on 29 November 2014 on his return from Turkey (though actually arrested on the previous day) and instead of being produced before the Special Court constituted under Sec. 11 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 ("NIA Act"), was produced before the ordinary Sessions Court and remanded to police custody till 8 December 2014; that thereafter, on 8 December 2014, the Petitioner was produced before the Special NIA Court, which extended his police custody till 22 December 2014; that he was produced on 17 December 2014 before the Special NIA Court, when he was remanded to judicial custody till 31 December 2014; and that once again, on 31 December 2014, instead of being produced before the Special NIA Court, the Petitioner was produced before the Sessions Court and remanded to further judicial custody till 14 January 2015, the custody having been thereafter extended twice by the Special NIA Court and once by the Sessions Court till 25 February 2015. The Petitioner's grievance is that the action on the part of NIA to produce the Petitioner before the ordinary Sessions Court instead of the Special NIA Court for obtaining police/judicial remand and orders of the Sessions Court thereon were in violation of the provisions of Ss. 13 and 16 of the NIA Act. The further case of the Petitioner is that since the investigation could not be completed by NIA within the stipulated period of 90 days from the date of the first judicial remand, on 16 February 2015, NIA preferred an application before the Special NIA Court under Sec. 43 -D (2)(b) of UAP Act; that on 24 February 2015, when the Petitioner was, upon directions of the Special NIA Court, produced before Court, the Special Judge presiding over that Court was on leave and the hearing of the Miscellaneous Application was assigned for hearing to the Sessions Judge holding charge of the Special NIA Court under administrative orders of the Principal Judge of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Mumbai; that the Sessions Judge heard the matter on that day and allowed the Miscellaneous Application the next day, i.e. on 25 February 2015, extending the Petitioner's detention for a further period of 30 days from 26 February 2015 and granting the same extension to NIA to complete the investigation and file the charge -sheet; and that on the same day, by an order on a separate application of NIA, the judicial custody of the Petitioner was extended up to 11 March 2015. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that the Special Judge appointed by the Central Government under Sec. 11 of the NIA Act for the State of Maharashtra alone has jurisdiction to try the Petitioner and deal with his remand in custody or extend the time for filing of the charge -sheet; and that under Sec. 13 of the NIA Act, ordinary courts under the Code are barred from doing so. The Petitioner submits that accordingly, the Petitioner's detention and judicial custody beyond 25 February 2015 as well as extension of time to file charge -sheet are vitiated as unlawful. On 10 March 2015, after the Special NIA Court resumed its duties, the Petitioner presented an application for statutory or default bail, seeking his release on bail under Sec. 167(2) of the Code read with Sec. 43 -D(2)(b) of the UAP Act. During the pendency of this application, the NIA moved for a further extension of detention of the Petitioner before the Special NIA Court. The application was allowed by that Court and the period of detention was extended for 60 days from 26 February 2015. Finally, by its order dated 2 May 2015, the application of the Petitioner for statutory bail was rejected by the Special NIA Court. Being aggrieved by the order, the Petitioner has preferred the companion appeal.