Supreme Court Overturns Default Bail in UAPA Case: Key Ruling on Terrorism Investigation

The Supreme Court of India has set aside the Delhi High Court’s order granting default bail to Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The case, State of NCT of Delhi vs. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely, involved serious charges related to terrorism, arms possession, and conspiracy. The judgment reinforces judicial scrutiny in terrorism-related cases and clarifies the conditions for extending investigation periods beyond 90 days.

Background of the Case

The case originated from FIR No. 154 of 2020, registered on June 16, 2020, at the Special Cell, New Delhi. The respondent, Raj Kumar, was arrested on June 18, 2020, under the following charges:

Sections 13, 18, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)
Sections 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959

The allegations against the respondent included involvement in terrorist activities, conspiracy to commit acts against national security, and illegal possession of arms.

Legal Issue: Extension of Investigation Period

Under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), an accused is entitled to default bail if the police fail to file a chargesheet within the prescribed time:

90 days for serious offenses
180 days for cases under UAPA if the prosecution justifies the delay

In this case, the investigation was extended beyond 90 days based on requests from the Investigating Officer, citing delays in obtaining forensic reports, sanctions, and other evidence.

High Court’s Decision to Grant Default Bail

The Delhi High Court granted default bail to Raj Kumar on February 11, 2021, ruling that:

The second extension of investigation was granted without valid reasons.
The delay in obtaining sanctions under UAPA and the Arms Act was not a valid ground for extending the investigation period.
The accused was entitled to default bail since the police failed to complete the investigation within the extended time.

Supreme Court’s Observations

After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in granting default bail. The key observations were:

“The provisions of Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA allow for an extension of investigation if the Public Prosecutor submits a report indicating progress and specific reasons for continued detention.”

“The reasons given for extension—pending forensic reports, sanctions from government authorities, and ongoing investigation—were valid grounds under UAPA.”

“Terrorism-related cases involve complex investigations, often requiring coordination with multiple agencies, forensic analysis, and intelligence reports.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

The Delhi High Court’s order granting default bail was set aside.
Raj Kumar’s bail was canceled, and he was ordered to be taken into custody immediately.
The Supreme Court emphasized that courts should be cautious while granting bail in terrorism-related cases, considering national security implications.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for counterterrorism investigations and the judicial approach to bail under UAPA:

Strengthened Investigation Procedures: The ruling clarifies that valid reasons, such as pending forensic reports and government sanctions, justify extending investigation periods.
Judicial Restraint in Bail Matters: Courts must exercise caution while granting bail in cases involving terrorism and national security.
Clarification on Default Bail under UAPA: The judgment reaffirms that default bail is not an absolute right and must be assessed based on the prosecution’s justifications for delays.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of NCT of Delhi vs. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely reinforces the stringent legal framework under UAPA. By overturning the default bail, the ruling ensures that counterterrorism investigations are not hampered due to procedural loopholes. The judgment serves as a guiding principle for lower courts in handling cases related to national security and terrorism.

Petitioner Name: State of NCT of Delhi.
Respondent Name: Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely.
Judgment By: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Rajesh Bindal.
Place Of Incident: New Delhi.
Judgment Date: 03-01-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: state-of-nct-of-delh-vs-raj-kumar-@-lovepree-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-03-01-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Terrorist Activities
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by Vikram Nath
See all petitions in Judgment by Rajesh Bindal
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category