The State government had filed the present review petition against a September 2021 order of the top court.
The September 2021 order was passed on a plea by four persons accused under UAPA against an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The High Court in turn had confirmed a March 2014 order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Bhopal, granting the investigating agency extension of time under Section 43D(2)(b) to complete the probe against the accused.
On completion of 90 days of their actual custody, applications on behalf of appellants had been moved under Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail on the ground that no chargesheet was filed by the Investigating Agency within 90 days. Those applications were rejected by the CJM, Bhopal.
The High Court had held that since the CJM, Bhopal, had passed an appropriate order in March, 2014, the period available for the investigating machinery to complete the investigation stood extended to 180 days and as such the applications preferred by the appellants under Section 167(2) of the Code were not maintainable, and that the appellants were not entitled to relief.
The Supreme Court had on September 7, 2021 held that the power under the first proviso to section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA would be with special court set up under the National Investigation Agency Act and in the absence of such special courts, with the sessions court.
“In so far as ‘extension of time to complete investigation’ is concerned, the Magistrate would not be competent to consider the request and the only competent authority to consider such request would be ‘the Court’ as specified in the proviso in Section 43-D (2)(b) of the UAPA,” the top court had said.
In this regard, the apex court confirmed its 2020 judgment in Bikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab.
“After considering various provisions of the relevant statues, it was concluded (in Bikramjit) that “so far as all offences under the UAPA are concerned, the Magistrate’s jurisdiction to extend time under the first proviso in Section 43-D (2)(b) is nonexistent,” the order had further said.
This order came to be challenged by way of the present review petition which was dismissed.
Source: Barandbench
