Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court

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