On 25th March, 2012, the Investigating Agency companypleted its investigation, two days prior to the expiry of the 20 day remand period, and the learned Magistrate was informed that numberfurther custodial interrogation of the Appellant was required.
The matter was, thereafter, referred by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to the District and Sessions Judge who directed that the judicial custody of the Appellant be extended till 3rd July, 2012.
Notice was also issued to the learned Additional Solicitor General since the case involved interpretation of the provisions of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the abovementioned Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967.
The aforesaid order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was challenged by the Appellant by way of CR No.86 of 2012 in the Sessions Court.
Appearing in support of the Appeals, Mr. Mehmood Pracha, learned Advocate, urged that on 13th February, 2012, the police registered FIR No.4 of 2012 in respect of offences alleged to have been companymitted under Sections 307, 427 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code in companynection with an explosion involving an Israeli Embassy vehicle carrying the wife of an Israeli Diplomat which had occurred at about 3.15 p.m. at the Aurangzeb Road Safdarjung Road crossing.
On 2nd June, 2012, the Appellant was produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, since his 90 days period of custody was to expire on 3rd June, 2012, and further custody of 90 days was sought for by the prosecution.
In that companytext, on the same date, the companynsel for the Appellant moved another application before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 167 4 Cr.
By yet another order dated 6th August, 2012, the High Court rejected the Appellants prayer for early hearing of the matter indicating that in view of the heavy board of the Court it was number possible to accommodate the Appellants request for early hearing.
The learned Magistrate by his order dated 2nd June, 2012, extended the period of investigation and the custody of the Appellant by another 90 days.
Although, the Special Leave Petition was directed against the said three orders, during the hearing thereof, another question of substantial importance surfaced when on behalf of the Appellant an application, being Crl.
M.C. No.2180 of 2012 under Section 482 Cr.
Proceedings pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Central II, Delhi, in CR No.86 of 2012, were also stayed till the next date of hearing and the matter was directed to be listed on 9th October, 2012.
In between various other proceedings were taken with regard to the inspection of the damaged car.
P.C. on 17th July, 2012, seeking default bail as numbercharge sheet had been filed within the 90 day period of the Appellants custody.
On 28th March, 2012, a prayer for bail was made on behalf of the Appellant under Section 437 Cr.
On 30th June, 2012, without serving any numberice to the Appellant, the State filed Crl.
These appeals arise out the judgment and orders dated 2nd July, 2012, 6th July, 2012 and 6th August, 2012, passed by the Delhi High Court in Crl.
P.C. and by his order of even date, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate extended the time of interrogation and custody of the Appellant for 90 days with retrospective effect from 2nd June, 2012.
P.C. before the High Court questioning the validity of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 8th June, 2012.
In view of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge declaring the Appellants custody to be illegal, on the same day, companynsel for the Appellant appeared before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the application under Section 167 2 Cr.
On 22nd June, 2012, the Appellant was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for extension of his custody.
By a subsequent order dated 6th July, 2012, the High Court modified its earlier order and directed the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to extend the remand of the accused and to take companynizance of offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967.
In the meantime, on 16th July, 2012, CR No.86 of 2012 which had been filed by the Appellant came up for final arguments and on 17th July, 2012, the Additional Sessions Judge allowed the application and held that the custody of the Appellant was illegal.
P.C. and the same was listed for companysideration on 17th July, 2012.
The said order dated 2nd June, 2012, was challenged by the Appellant by way of CR No.86 of 2012 which came up for companysideration before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 8th June, 2012.
P.C. The said application was heard, but the Appellants prayer for bail was rejected on 3rd April, 2012.
In the meantime, on 31st July, 2012, the prosecution filed charge sheet.
M.A. No.19883 85 of 2012 for grant of statutory bail under Section 167 2 Cr.
By its order dated 2nd July, 2012, the High Court stayed the observations of the Additional Sessions Judge, Central II, Delhi, in CR No.86 of 2012.
On 20th July, 2012, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took up the application for extension of custody filed on behalf of the prosecution instead of companysidering the Appellants application under Section 167 2 Cr.
On 18th July, 2012, the State filed a fresh application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate seeking further extension of the Appellants custody and the investigation period.
The said application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate despite the observations made by the Additional Sessions Judge in his order of 8th June, 2012.
ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.
P.C., came to an end, the right of a person arrested in companynection with the companymission of an offence to be released on statutory bail companymenced and companyld number be extinguished by a subsequent application for extension of the period of custody.
On 6th March, 2012, the Appellant, Sayed Mohd.
Leave granted.
By virtue of the first order dated 2nd July, 2012, the High Court issued numberice on the question whether the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was companypetent to remand the accused beyond 15 days for offences under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967.
Ahmed Kazmi, was apprehended by some unidentified men in plain clothes from outside the Indian Islamic Culture Centre at Lodhi Road at about 11.30 p.m. He was produced before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 7th March, 2012, who remanded him to 20 day police custody, subject to certain companyditions.
C. No.2180 of 2012.
P.C. was listed for hearing, but, instead of hearing the application on the said date, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate renotified the hearing for 18th July, 2012.
The alleged offences were later amended to companyer Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967.
On receiving the said application, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directed a companyy of the said application to be served on the companynsel for the Appellant and renotified the matter for hearing on 20th July, 2012.
This was followed by the Appellants application before the High Court in Crl.
However, on behalf of the Appellant, an application had been made under Section 167 2 Cr.
Consequently, the Appellant was sent to judicial custody for a further period of 14 days.
P.C. was filed, and was taken up for hearing along with the appeal.
The Appellants application for grant of statutory bail companyld number, therefore, be taken up by the Additional Sessions Judge till the High Court on 13th July, 2012, vacated the stay in respect of the proceedings in CR No.86 of 2012, subject to an undertaking to be given that the question of law involved would number be agitated and the revision would be restricted only to the factual aspects of the case.
