Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court's 'Casual' Grant of Default Bail in Terrorism Case: Emphasizes Gravity of National Security

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India today overturned the Delhi High Court's decision to grant default bail to an accused in a terrorism-related case. The apex court, led by Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, criticized the High Court's approach as "casual" in the context of a case involving serious allegations of terrorism and national security.

The case, involving the State of NCT of Delhi vs. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely, centered around the High Court's application of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, granting default bail to the respondent. The Supreme Court, in its judgement, highlighted the critical nature of the offences, stating, "The matter should not have been taken so lightly," given the accused's alleged involvement in activities with "not only Pan India impact but also impact on other enemy States."

The Supreme Court's decision underscores the distinct provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in extending the investigation period, which the High Court had overlooked. The apex court pointed out that the High Court had erred in applying the provisions of the TADA Act, which were not relevant to this case under the UAPA.

Justice Nath, in the judgement, emphasized the importance of specific reasons, such as pending sanctions and forensic science laboratory (FSL) reports, for extending the investigation period beyond 90 days under the UAPA. He remarked, "Major investigation of the case had been completed... However, for want of remaining sanctions and FSL report, some more time was required for completing the investigation."

Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, directing that the respondent be taken into custody forthwith, if not already. This judgement is seen as a reinforcement of the judiciary's stance on the seriousness of cases involving terrorism and the necessity for meticulous judicial scrutiny in such sensitive matters.

Date of Decision: 03 January  2024

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI VS RAJ KUMAR @ LOVEPREET  @LOVELY

 

Latest Legal News