2009 (11) TMI 932 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Arrest and custody of petitioner, jurisdiction of investigating agencies, application of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, grant of bail.

Arrest and Custody of Petitioner: The petitioner was arrested on 31st May, 2009, along with another individual based on disclosures made during interrogation regarding funding an extremist organization. The Chief Judicial Magistrate initially sent the petitioner to police custody and later allowed custodial interrogation in the Central Jail. Bail applications were rejected by the Magistrate and subsequently by the High Court and Sessions Judge.

Jurisdiction of Investigating Agencies: The National Investigating Agency took over the investigation on 5th June, 2009, and filed a separate First Information Report. The NIA was granted custody of the petitioner for ten days initially, which was extended but later rejected. The Sessions Judge extended the investigation period by 60 days under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

Application of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: The petitioner's counsel argued that the allegations did not meet the criteria under Section 13 of the Act, and therefore, the provisions of Section 17 and 43D should not apply. The counsel contended that the petitioner could not have known about the unlawful activities of the organization at the time of arrest.

Grant of Bail: The petitioner's counsel emphasized that there was no evidence linking the petitioner to any terrorist or unlawful activities. The recovery of funds from the petitioner was explained as being held on behalf of his mother. The counsel argued for the grant of statutory bail during the investigation period.

Judgment: The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, rejecting the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel. The Court held that the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, were applicable to the case, and the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge to extend the investigation period was upheld. Further investigation into the allegations, including the recovery of funds, was deemed necessary, leading to the dismissal of the bail applications.