SAYED MOHD. AHMED KAZMI versus STATE, GNCTD & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 9 S.C.R. 836 · Decided: 19-10-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2012] 9 S.C.R. 836 
SAYED MOHD. AHMED KAZMI 
V. 
STATE, GNCTD & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1695-1697 of 2012) 
OCTOBER 19, 2012 
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI, SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR 
AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
167 (2) -
C Prosecution of accused ulss. 302, 427 and 1208-tPC and ss. 
16 and 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act - Accused 
sent to judicial custody by Magistrate - After completion of 
judicial custody for 90 days, Magistrate extended the period 
of investigation and custody of the accused by another 90 
D days - In revision against the order of the Magistrate, Sessions 
Court held the custody of the accused to be illegal - Accused's 
application uls. 167(2) seeking default bail as no charge-sheet 
was filed within 90 days - The Magistrate instead of hearing 
the application for bail, kept on renotifying the hearing - In the 
E meantime State filing fresh application seeking further 
extention of investigation period and the custody of the 
accused - Magistrate did not consider the bail application and 
extended the investigation period and custody of the accused 
for 90 days with retrospective effect i.e. from the date the initial 
F judicial custody for 90 days got over - Thereafter prosecution 
filed charge-sheet - Accused further filed application for early 
hearing which was dismissed by High Court - Appeal against 
the orders of"High Court - Held: The order of the Magistrate 
extending time of investigation and custody of the accused 
G for 90 days with retrospective effect and the orders of High 
Court are set aside - The accused acquired the right for 
statutory bail when his custody was held to be illegal - The 
Magistrate could not defeat the statutory right which accrued 
to the accused on the expiry of 90 days from the date he was 
H 
836 
SAYED MOHD. AHMED KAZMI v. STATE, GNCTD & 837 
ORS. 
taken into custody- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 A 
- Penal Code, 1860. 
Sanjay Dutt vs. State through CBI (1994) 5 SCC 410: 
1994 (3) Suppl. CR 263 ; Dr. Bipin Shanli/al Panchal vs. 
State of Gujarat (1996) 1 SCC 718: 1996 (1) SCR 193 • B 
distinguished. 
Uday Mohan/al Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra (2001) 
5 SCC 
453: 2001 (2) SCR 878 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
2001 (2) SCR 878 
Referred to 
Para 19 
1994 (3) Suppl. .SCR 263 
Distinguished Para 19 
1996 (1) SCR 193 
Distinguished Para 22 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1695-1697 of 2012. 
c 
D 
From the Judgment & Order dated 02.07.2012, 
06.07.2012 and 06.08.2012 of the High Court of Delhi at New 
E 
Delhi in Criminal M.C. No. 2180 of 2012. 
Mehmood Pracha, Gajinder Kumar, Sheikh Faroz Iqbal, 
Sneha Singh, Chander Shekhar, Chirag M. Shroff for the 
Appellant. 
Harin P. Raval, ASG Shriniwas Khalap, Anirudh Sharma, 
Anando Mukharji, Palash Kanwar, D.S. Mahra, 8.V. Bairam Das 
for the Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI. 1. Leave granted. 
2. These appeals arise out the judgment and orders dated 
2nd July, 2012, 6th July, 2012 and 6th August, 2012, passed 
F 
G 
by the Delhi High Court in Crl. M.C. No.2180 of 2012. 
H 
838 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
3. By virtue of the first order dated 2nd July, 2012, the High 
Court issued notice on the question whether the Court of the 
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was competent to remand the 
accused beyond 15 days for offences under the provisions of 
the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Notice was also 
B 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. Proceedings pending before the 
e 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. 
By a subsequent order dated 6th July, 2012, the High Court 
modified its earlier order and directed the Chief Metropolitan 
0 
Magistrate to extend the remand of the accused and to take 
cognizance of offences under the Unlawful Activities 
(Prevention) Act, 1967. By yet another order dated 6th August, 
2012, the High Court rejected the Appellant's prayer for early 
hearing of the matter indicating that in view of the heavy board 
of the Court it was not possible to accommodate the 
E Appe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.