UAPA offences triable by courts other than Special Court under NIA Act: Delhi High Court.

    Special Courts and Tribunals-IndiaFilings

    The sister of the petitioner, Aqil Hussain i.e. Gulfisha Fatima was arrested by the Delhi Police on 9.04.2020  in connection with the Delhi riots. Initially first  F.I.R. was registered under section 147,186,188, 283, 353, 109 IPC.

     The bail application was applied by the petitioner’s sister which was dismissed on the grounds that the provisions of UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) ,Arms’s Act and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act are also invoked in second F.I.R filed. Petitioner moved to the Session Court which granted the bail application on first F.I.R. only.

    While, the accused was still in judicial custody, petitioner approached High Court by way of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus.

     The High Court was of the view that there is no merit in the present petition. The extension of judicial remand granted by ASJ is in his jurisdiction is fully competent. Reliance placed by petitioner’s counsel on NIA act is misleading and red herring i.e. the piece of information provided by the petitioner is misleading and distracting.

    The UAPA does not state that all cases under the act have to be investigated by NIA. As per S.43 of UAPA, apart from NIA police establishments are equally competent to investigate cases under UAPA.

    According to S.6(7)  of NIA Act, clears that till “National Investigation Agency takes over investigation it is the duty of the officer in charge of the police station in which the case is filed to continue the investigation.”

    Also, S.45 of UAPA does not state that only special courts constituted under NIA would have jurisdiction to try offences under the Act. Therefore, the considered view is that the present writ petition is not maintainable since the detenue, Gulfisha Fatima is in judicial custody under orders passed by the learned ASJ-02, Shri Dharmender Rana who was competent to do so.

    For all the aforesaid reasons, courts do not find any merit in this petition and dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.