STATE OF NCT OF DELHI versus RAJ KUMAR @ LOVEPREET @LOVELY

Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 73 · Decided: 03-01-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 73 : 2024 INSC 11
Case Details
State of NCT of Delhi
v.
Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @Lovely
(Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2024)
03 January 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The High Court granted default bail to the respondent u/s. 167(2) 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Whether the High Court 
committed an error in allowing the petition and granting default 
bail to the respondent.
Headnotes
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Penal Code, 1860 – 
ss.201/120-B – Arms Act, 1959 – ss. 13/18/20 – The High Court 
had relied upon the judgment in the case of Hitendra Vishnu 
Thakur and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others 
wherein the Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions 
of s.20(4) (bb) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities 
(Prevention) Act, 1987 and had observed that the period for 
granting extension of investigation could not be extended in 
a casual manner – Propriety:
Held: In the instant case, the period of 90 days expired on 
15.09.2020 – Before the expiry of the said period on the 
request of the Investigating Officer, the time for investigation 
was extended by order dated 11.09.2020 for a further period of 
two months till 11.11.2020 – Investigation was not completed – 
Public Prosecutor moved another application dated 07.11.2020 
requesting for further extension of time for investigation for a 
period of 30 days as per the provisions contained in s. 43D (2) 
(b) of UAPA – The said application was allowed by the Trial 
Court on 10.11.2020 and the period of investigation was further 
extended till 30.11.2020 – The respondent moved an application 
on 11.11.2020 itself u/s. 167 of the CrPC for release on bail – 
The said application was rejected by the Trial Court vide order 
dated 17.11.2020 – However, the High Court granted the default 
74
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
bail – Reliance placed upon the judgment in the case of Hitendra 
Vishnu Thakur by the High Court was misplaced – It was a case 
relating to TADA, whereas the present case related to UAPA – 
The provisions under UAPA s.43D(2)(b) are different and give 
other reasons also for extension of time for investigation – The 
High Court also committed an error in recording a finding that 
sanction had already been received prior to the date of making 
the application for extension in November 2020 – The recording 
of the said fact is not correct – The Public Prosecutor in the 
application had clearly mentioned that the sanction u/s. 45(1) 
of UAPA had been obtained from Government of India, Ministry 
of Home Affairs and was attached with the case file – However, 
the sanction u/s. 45(2) of UAPA was awaited from GNCT Delhi 
and that the sanction u/s. 39 of the Arms Act was to be obtained 
after the results from the FSL was received – The High Court 
also fell in error in not taking into consideration the reasons 
given u/s. 43D(2) (b) were clearly made out and explained in 
the extension letter dated 07.11.2020 giving the details of the 
progress of the investigation as also the reasons for detaining 
the respondent – The High Court also failed to consider that 
after completing the investigation, Police report u/s. 173(2) CrPC 
had already been submitted prior to 30.11.2020 which was the 
last date of the extended period – The High Court committed 
an error in allowing the petition and granting default bail to the 
respondent – The impugned order passed by the High Court is 
set aside. [Paras 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 5, 8, 10, 12]
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – s.43D(2)(b):
Held: From a perusal of the provision i.e. 43 D(2)(b), the extension 
for investigation could be granted up to a maximum period of 180 
days for the following reasons: (i) Completion of the investigation; 
(ii) Progress in the investigation was explained; and (iii) Specific 
reasons for detention beyond a period of 90 days. [Para 6]
List of Citations and Other References
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others vs. The State 
of Maharashtra and others [1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 
360:(1994) 4 SCC 602 – held inapplicable.
State of Maharashtra vs. Surendra Pundlik Gadling 
and others [2019] 3 SCR 310:(2019) 5 SCC 178 – 
referred to.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
75
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v. 
RAJ KUMAR @ LOVEPREET @LOVELY
List of Acts
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – s.43D(2)(b); Penal 
Code, 1860 – ss.201/120-B; Arms Act, 1959 – ss. 25/54/59; 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 167(2).
L
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.