ATEEF NASIR MULLA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 919 · Decided: 24-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
A TEEF NASIR MULLA 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
AUGUST 24, 2005 
B 
[B.P. SINGH AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 167(2)-Prevention of 
Terrorism Act, 2002-Sections 3, 4 & 49 (2) (b}-Accused arrested in 
connection with terrorist activities-Period of remand extended from time to 
time-Special Court allowing the application moved by prosecution before C 
Special Court for extension of time for completion of investigation before the 
expiry of statutory period of 90 days-Special Court also dismissing the 
application, for grant of bail moved by the accused-High Court dismissing 
the appeal of the accused on both the grounds--Correctness of-Held, 
legislature provided some latitude to the prosecution for completion of D 
investigation by providing extension of time in case of offences involving 
terrorist activities-On facts, Court is satisfied with the report of the Public 
Prosecutor that there was good ground for grant of extemion of time. 
A bomb blast took place in a local train resulting in several deaths 
and injuries to several persons. Investigation disclosed that the incident 
was the result of a conspiracy hatched by several persons to strike terror 
in the minds of the people by explosion of bombs and preparations to wage 
E 
war against the State. A case was registered under sections 3 and 4 of the 
Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 and other relevant Acts. Appellant was 
arrested in connection with the case. The period ofremand of the appellant F 
was extended from time to time for investigation. 
The prosecution moved an application for extension of time to 
complete the investigation under section 49(2)(b) of the Act before the 
Special Court. When the couasel for the appellant, who was present in the 
Special Court for another case, came to know that application is moved G 
by the prosecution without a notice to the appellant, he sought one week 
adjournment for filing a reply to the application, The Special Court 
rejected the prayer for one week's time but only granted time till afternoon 
of the day to the counsel to file a reply which was filed. The Special Court, 
. after considering the reply of the appellant, allowed the application of the H 
919 
920 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
prosecution by granting extension of time for completing the investigation. 
The appellant was accordingly remanded. 
The appellant filed an application before the Special Court for grant 
of bail on the ground that the period of 90 days had expired, in terms of 
B section 49 (2) (b) of the Act read with section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The Special 
Court rejected the application for grant of bail. Both the orders of the 
Special Court were challenged by the appellant in appeal before High 
Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal. 
In appeal before this Court, the appellant contended that the 
C application filed by the prosecution praying for extension of time to 
complete the investigation did not contain any specific reason for detention 
of the appellant beyond the statutory period of90 days; that no notice was 
given to the appellant by the prosecution before moving the application 
for extension of time before the Special. Court; that on the expiry of 90 
D days from the date of arrest, since the prosecution has failed to file a 
charge sheet before the Special Court, the appellant had acquired an 
indefeasible right to be released on bail. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD : 1.1. The prosecution in its application explained that the 
investigation of the case revealed that there was a deep-rooted and 
widespread conspiracy which had a bearing on national security and 
therefore it was necessary to unearth the deep-rooted conspiracy and to 
bring to book all the conspirators and the perpetrators involved in 
F 
connection with offences committed by them pursuant to the conspiracy. 
G 
The report of the Public Prosecutor must satisfy the Court that the 
Investigating Agency had acted diligently and though there had been 
progress of the investigation, yet it was not possible for reasons disclosed 
to complete the investigation within the period of 90 days. In such cases, 
having regard to the progress of the investigation and the specific reason 
for grant of extension of time, the Court, may, extend the period for 
completion of the investigation thereby enabling the Court to remand the 
accused to custody during the extended period. These are compPlsions 
which 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.