Introduction:

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, recently ruled on an appeal filed by the Delhi Police regarding the grant of default bail to Lovepreet, accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”). The Court found the High Court’s decision to grant default bail erroneous and observed that the matter should not have been treated lightly.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The Delhi Police, represented by Advocate Rajat Gautam, contended that the High Court erred in granting default bail to Lovepreet. They emphasized that the conditions specified under Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA, which grants discretionary power to extend the investigation period, were satisfied. The police argued that the reliance on a precedent under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (“TADA”) by the High Court was misplaced, as the specific provisions and judgments under UAPA should have been considered.

On the defense side, Lovepreet’s counsel, represented by Advocate Manu K. Bhandari, maintained that the High Court rightly granted default bail. They argued that the extension sought for investigation was not on valid grounds, specifically citing the pending mandatory sanction before the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD).

Court’s Judgement:

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, highlighted the misinterpretation by the High Court regarding the receipt of mandatory sanction. It clarified that the application clearly stated the pending sanction under UAPA Section 45(2) from GNCT Delhi and the Arms Act Section 39 sanction awaiting the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report.

The Court delved into Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA, emphasizing the need for the Public Prosecutor’s report detailing the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for the accused’s continued detention. It concluded that these requirements were fulfilled, as the Public Prosecutor provided insights into the progress of the investigation and reasons for Lovepreet’s detention in the extension letter.

The Court criticized the High Court’s failure to consider the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Surendra Pundlik Gadling, which specifically dealt with UAPA. It noted that the reliance on a TADA-related judgment, Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others, was inappropriate, given the distinct provisions under UAPA Section 43D(2)(b).

Given the alleged involvement in terrorist activities with potential nationwide and international ramifications, the Court stressed that the matter should not have been treated lightly. Consequently, it set aside the High Court’s order and directed Lovepreet’s immediate custody if not already in custody.