UAPA | The Supreme Court emphasizes that cases related to terrorism should not be treated lightly and sets aside the grant of default bail
Case: State of NCT of Delhi v. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal
Case No.: SLP(CRL.) No.2503/2021
Court Observation: “The Public Prosecutor in the application had clearly mentioned that the sanction under section 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 under section 45(2) of UAPA was awaited from GNCT Delhi and that the sanction under section 39 of the Arms Act was to be obtained after the results from the FSL was received.”
“The Public Prosecutor had mentioned in the request that major investigation of the case had been completed and the draft chargesheet had been prepared. However, for want of remaining sanctions and FSL report some more time was required for completing the investigation.”
“Reliance placed upon the said judgment in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (supra) by the Delhi High Court was misplaced. It was a case relating to TADA, whereas the present case related to UAPA. The provisions under UAPA section 43D(2)(b) are different and give other reasons also for extension of time for investigation.”
Previous Posts
