Justice M Nagaprasanna rejected the petition and allowed the extension of his judicial custody under Section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
“The order extracted (order of trial court granting extension of judicial custody) contains detailed reasons assigned by the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) while filing an application extracting the contents of the report of the Investigating Officer. Therefore it is not a case where the report or the opinion of the Investigating Officer or SPP suffers from want of application of mind…
In light of the statute (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act), the judgements of the Apex Court interpreting Section 43D(2)(b) of the Act, the report of the Investigating Officer, the application of the SPP and the order of extension of judicial custody, what would unmistakably emerge is that, the report of the Investigating Officer is in consonance with the provisions of the Act, so is the application filed by the SPP,” the judgment said.
Source: Barandbench
