9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed the under-trial has to remain in judicial custody and as it was not possible for the accused to be produced before the Special Court because of the Covid restrictions, her remand was rightly extended by the Duty Metropolitan Magistrate as per the directions issued from time to time by the higher judicial authorities keeping in view the prevailing circumstances. Thus, filing of a complete charge-sheet within the stipulated period is sufficient compliance and no default bail can be granted in a case where cognizance was taken later on and the custody of the accused/appellant cannot be termed as illegal only on the ground that sufficient amount of time was spent by the court clerk to raise objections regarding page numbering and illegible documents etc., and the respondent/NIA had taken some time to respond to the said objections and after removal of objections, the cognizance was rightly taken on 03.07.2020. There is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed from time to time regarding detention of the present appellant - Appeal dismissed. - Hon ble Mr. Justice Siddharth Mridul And Hon ble Mr. Justice Talwant Singh For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Gupta Senior Advocate wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eking extension of detention period, the extension was granted for 45 days. A further extension of 45 days was again granted vide order dated 21.04.2020. 2.1 Three days police custody remand of the appellant/accused vide order dated 20.05.2020 was given. The appellant has extended full cooperation during investigation. 2.2 The 180 days investigation period was to expire on 14.06.2020; however, on 11.06.2020 the NIA filed charge-sheet in the matter and it was kept for consideration on 18.06.2020. Neither cognizance was taken on the said date nor the prosecution had asked for judicial custody remand of the appellant. 2.3 Neither the appellant nor her counsel was informed regarding the filing of the charge-sheet nor the link for the proceeding was sent to them. In fact, the appellant was sent to judicial custody on 14.06.2020. The prosecution was informed on 18.06.2020 regarding enormous discrepancies in the charge-sheet for which the prosecution sought two weeks time for rectification and the matter was adjourned to 03.07.2020. On 20.06.2020, counsel for the appellant/accused moved an application for inspection of the case file but the same was not granted due to prevailing Covid-19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed about her involvement in terrorist activities being carried out by the NSCN (IM). Her husband is an Ex. Army Chief of NSCN (IM) and he is still holding a senior position in the organization and he was staying in China. The appellant is working for NSCN (IM) since her marriage in the year 2000. The appellant is the Chairperson of the Women Society of NSCN (IM) and is also a Minister of the terrorist organization NSCN (IM). It has been further submitted that there is sufficient evidence in the form of incriminating documents, statement of witnesses and digital evidence, which establishes that accused persons had entered into a criminal conspiracy and they have directly raised and collected funds for NSCN (IM) through illegal means of extortion and by giving out loans at exorbitant rate of interest. The appellant, as well as her husband were stated to be in touch with unknown foreign activists to garner support of their activities against Indian State. During the course of investigation, statements of people, who had knowledge of these types of acts, were recorded and incriminating documents/pictures of arms/Armed Cadres of NSCN (IM) were collected. 3.1 After completion of the inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which the present appellant does not fulfill. The appellant is stated to be a very influential person and if she is released on bail, she may influence the witnesses, especially the witness(s) residing in North East States of India. In view of this, it has been prayed that the appeal filed by the accused/appellant may be dismissed. 4. Both the parties have filed written synopsis and have relied upon number of judgements. Record from the office of Superintendent Central Jail No. 6, Tihar was also summoned consisting of the remand papers from 06.06.2020 till 14.06.2020 and 18.06.2020 to 03.07.2020. The remand papers show that on 06.06.2020 the accused was ordered to be produced on 14.06.2020 through video conferencing and the date already fixed on 09.06.2020 was cancelled. The next order sheet shows that accused was produced before Duty Magistrate on 18.06.2020, where she was ordered to be produced on 03.07.2020. On 03.07.2020 the accused was produced before Duty Magistrate and she was ordered to be produced on 04.08.2020 and so on. The order dated 11.06.2020 passed by the learned ASJ-03 Mr. Praveen Singh shows that charge-sheet was filed before him. On filing of the charge-sheet, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, so the case of the appellant cannot be split from other known or unknown persons and as such the charge-sheet is incomplete. Moreover, no permission was sought for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. 4.4 On the other hand, it has been argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/NIA that the charge-sheet filed in the Court of Learned Special Judge is a complete charge-sheet and on the basis of the said charge-sheet, charges have already been framed in Court. The present charge-sheet is a complete charge-sheet and is not a preliminary charge-sheet against the appellant and the same has been filed within the prescribed statutory period. Moreover, investigation against other known or unknown accused persons is still continuing and at an appropriate stage, they will be charge-sheeted. 5. In view of the power of the police to conduct further investigation in respect of other known or unknown accused persons, the police has a statutory power and the Court cannot interfere with the same as per the provisions of Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C., which is reproduced herein:- 173(8). Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idential offices of the judicial officers. 7.1 After taking cognizance, unless and until a bail order is passed, in our view, the under-trial has to remain in judicial custody and as it was not possible for the accused to be produced before the Special Court because of the Covid restrictions, her remand was rightly extended by the Duty Metropolitan Magistrate as per the directions issued from time to time by the higher judicial authorities keeping in view the prevailing circumstances. 8. Another ground agitated by the learned counsel for the appellant is that an incomplete charge-sheet was filed on 11.06.2020 and even on this charge-sheet the cognizance was taken beyond the period of limitation on 03.07.2020, so the appellant is entitled to a default bail. In Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi Ors., reported as 2022 SCC OnLine SC 153 the Hon ble Supreme Court has discussed all the prevailing judgments on this issue and has finally come to the conclusion as under:- 16. A close scrutiny of the judgments in Sanjay Dutt (supra), Madar Sheikh (supra) and M. Ravindran (supra) would show that there is nothing contrary to what has been decided in Bhikamchand Jain (supra). In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prosecute the accused and to proceed to the stage of Section 309 CrPC, it prosecute the accused and to proceed to the stage of Section 309 CrPC, it cannot be said that the accused in entitled to grant of statutory bail, as envisaged in Section 167 CrPC. The scheme of CrPC is such that once the investigation stage is completed, the court proceeds to the next stage. Which is the taking of cognizance and trial. An accused has to remain in custody of some court. During the period of investigation, the accused is under the custody of the Magistrate before whom he or she is first produced. During that stage, under Section 167(2) CrPC, the Magistrate is vested with authority to remand the accused to custody, both police custody and/or judicial custody, for 15 days at a time, up to a maximum period of 60 days in cases of offences punishable for less than 10 years and 90 days where the offences are punishable for over 10 years or even death sentence. In the event, an investigating authority fails to file the charge-sheet within the stipulated period. the accused is entitled to be released on statutory bail. In such a situation. the accused continues to remain in the custody of the Magistrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
