Public prosecutor’s report need not be given to accused, says Delhi High Court

The High Court said the special court is required to satisfy itself that there is sufficient material to form a reasonable belief that prima facie an offence under UAPA is made out, though no reasons with regard to this is needed to be reflected in the order as the same would entail disclosure of the probe being carried out.

The HC said while extending remand, the special court must consider reasons which show the “personal satisfaction” of the public prosecutor on the “progress of the investigation”. The court must consider the reasons indicating why the investigation could not be completed within 90 days and further investigation is required to be carried out for which the extension is necessary. “All these three essential ingredients must form part of the public prosecutor’s report, based on which the special court would arrive at the satisfaction to extend the period of remand,” the HC said.

The court further held that when the public prosecutor’s report is presented before the special court, it shall “apply its mind” to determine a “reasonable time” required to complete the probe and extend the detention for such period up to 90 days.

The issue pertains to the proviso mentioned in Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA, which states that where “it is not possible” for the investigating agency to complete the probe within 90 days, the court may, if it is satisfied with the report of the public prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of 90 days, extend the detention period up to 180 days.

With respect to the petitions of accused Zeeshan Qamar, Mizha Siddeeque, Shifa Haris, Hanan Gulzar Dar, Zamin Adil Bhat and Haris Nisar Langoo, the High Court did not find a reason to interfere with the special court’s order extending their remand and dismissed their bail pleas.

The court, however, directed that Mushab Anwar and Rahees Rasheed be released on bail after furnishing a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh each with two surety bonds each of the like amount.

While granting them bail, the court held that the extension of judicial remand granted by the special court beyond the 90-day period was “not based on the satisfaction of the public prosecutor’s report”. When the high court was informed that Mohd Manan Dar was granted regular bail by a special court, the High Court disposed of his plea as infructuous.