High Court · 2025

appearing for the NIA as well as learned counsel for the petitioner on the maintainability of the petition.

5. The controversy regarding the nature of order allowing for extension of detention in custody of accused person has already came before the Guwahati High Court in the case of in the case of Jai Krishna Sarma Vs. Union of India (2020) 1 GLT 122, wherein the High Court held that order allowing for extension of detention in custody of accused person, is an interlocutory order in connection with the investigation. The Larger Bench of the Guwahati High Court in the case of (The State) The National Investigation Agency Vs. Akhil Gogoi, 2022 SCC OnLine Gau 1446, also upheld the same to be the correct proposition of law.

6. In view of above, as it is well settled that the order allowing the extension of detention of accused person is an interlocutory order and, therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the Special Counsel regarding the maintainability of the petition, is having no force and the same is hereby rejected.

7. Insofar as the another point of objection that though the prayer for default bail is sought by means of this petition, but an application is already filed before the court below, is concerned, the same has also no legs to stand, as in the present case, the order of detention is under challenge and the prayer is made for setting aside the said order with the consequential prayer that the petitioner may be enlarged on default bail. Therefore, this objection of the Special Counsel is also rejected.

8. While coming to merit of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case. As per the prosecution case, an application was received by the Central Government that attempts are being made by the leaders, cadres and sympathizers/ Over Ground Workers of CPI Maoist, a banned terrorist organization for re-energizing the decrepit influence in Northern Regional 3 Bureau comprising of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Delhi, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. Six persons were named in the F.I.R bearing NIA Case No. Rc-01/2023/NIA-LKW., namely, (i) Virendra @ Anjani @ Suraj- In- charge of State Organizing Committee of CPI (Maoist) in Delhi, (ii) Surendra, In-charge of State Organizing Committee of CPI (Maoist) in Punjab, (iii) Aman (petitioner), In-charge of State Organizing Committee of CPI (Maoist) in Haryana, (iv) Manish Azad @ Subhash, In-charge of State Organizing Committee of CPI (Maoist) in U.P., (v) Rohit Vidyarthi, U.P. and (vi) Ritesh Bidyarthi, U.P. It is further submitted that the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred under sub-Section (5) of Section 6 read with Section 8 of NIA Act, 2008, directed the National Investigation Agency to take up the investigation of the aforesaid case and the F.I.R. bearing NIA Case No. Rc-01/2023/NIA-LKW was registered at P.S. NIA, Lucknow on

16.06.2023, under Sections 120B, 121A I.P.C. and Sections 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thereafter, the investigation was started on 30.08.2024 and the NIA team conducted search of the house of petitioner and he was called for investigation in NIA Regional OfÏce, Chandigarh. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken into custody on 31.08.2024 with the allegation that he is active member of Banned Organisation CPI Maoist and is involved for re-energising their decrepit influence in Northern Regional Bureau and as it was found that the named person in the F.I.R.-Aman and the petitioner is one and same person. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow and 3 days’ transit remand was given to produce him before Court No. 1, Special Court, Lucknow vide order dated 31.08.2024. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner was produced before the NIA Special Court on

04.09.2024 and was granted 10 days’ police custody, in pursuance of which, the petitioner was sent to judicial custody on 13.09.2024 and since then, he is confined at District Jail, Lucknow. It has also been submitted that the National Investigation Agency vide application dated 21.11.2024 prayed for grant of extension of judicial custody of the petitioner, which was allowed on 26.11.2024 granting extension for 45 days. Thereafter, on 06.01.2025, again application was given by the Agency for grant of further extension of 45 days without 4 any report of Public Prosecutor. However, though on 07.01.2025, report of Public Prosecutor was presented in sealed cover, but neither the copy of the said report nor any ground of extension was communicated to the petitioner. Thereafter, the said application was allowed vide impugned order dated 09.01.2025 and the Special Court again granted extension of 45 days to the Agency for investigation.

10. Relying on the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Mujjamil & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 291of 2024), as well as decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Waheed-ur-Rehman Parra Vs. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, (2022) 12 SCC 240, Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 602 and Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Vs. State of Gujarat, (2023) 6 SCC 484, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that extension of time is not an empty formality. The Public Prosecutor has to apply his mind before he submits a report/application for extension of time. It has also been submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the court below to give specific reasons in the order for extension of detention. It has, thus, been submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner may be granted concession of default bail under Section 187 of B.N.S.

11. Refuting to the prayer of the petitioner, learned Special Counsel for the NIA submitted that the material available to the Investigation Agency during the course of investigation, cannot be mentioned in the application for extension of time, as the same can hamper the manner of investigation in the offence related to UAPA Act. As a result, the sealed cover report of Public Prosecutor was placed before the court below along with the case diary containing 225 parchas and after considering the progress of investigation, the Special Court was satisfied. Learned Special Counsel further submitted that no written objection was filed by the petitioner before the Special Court and, therefore, considering the material available in the case diary as well as the report of Public Prosecutor, 45 days’ time of detention was extended by the Special Court. She also submitted that charge sheet was submitted on 24.02.2025, i.e., within 180 days by preparing 247 parchas of the case diary. It has, thus, 5 been submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below.

12. Relying on the decision of Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya (supra), learned Special Counsel submitted that accused is not entitled to know the contents of the report of Public Prosecutor, but he is entitled to oppose the grant of extension of time on the grounds available to him in law. She also submitted that in the case of Zulfikar Ali Barodawala s/o Ali Barodawala & Anr. Vs. NIA (Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2024), Bombay High Court observed that material available to the Agency could not have been disclosed to the accused person, since the investigation has not been completed. It has also been submitted that the decision relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & Ors. (supra) will not apply in the present case, as in the said case, charge sheet was not filed within the statutory period. Similarly, the case of Mujjamil & Ors. (supra) is also not applicable in the present case as in the present case, investigation was continuously going on and at the time of passing the impugned order, 225 parchas were produced before the Special Court and at the time of filing of charge sheet, total 247 parchas were filed. It is, thus, submitted that the petition is misconceived and may be dismissed.

13. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Counsel appearing for the NIA as also gone through the contents of the petition, F.I.R., impugned order as well as other relevant documents including the decisions relied by learned counsel for both the parties.

14. The impugned order clearly reveals that request for extension of custody of the accused for further investigation was made by placing 225 parchas before the Special Court. It is also evident that the Public Prosecutor’s report was also placed in the sealed cover. Bombay High Court, in the case of Zulfikar Ali Barodawala (supra) observed that the material contained in the case diary should not be disclosed to the accused till the investigation is completed. Further, in the case of Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that contents of report of Public Prosecutor should not be provided to the accused and he is entitled to oppose the grant of 6 extension of time on the grounds available to him in law. Moreover, as the charge sheet has already been filed, a photocopy of the report of the Public Prosecutor, which was placed before the Special Court, is available before this Court. The said report of the Public Prosecutor dated

06.01.2025 clearly reveals that the analysis of data of hard drive is being done. The analysis of mirror image of some suspicious mobile numbers and incriminating images are also being done. The said report also reveals that 13 points are mentioned in the said report related to the investigation, which was going on. Evidently, as the points mentioned in the Public Prosecutor’s report were related to the strategy of investigation, the same should not be discussed in the order for extension of detention. Moreover, admittedly, the charge sheet has also been filed within the time limit of 180 days.

15. In view of above facts and discussions, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Special Court, warranting any interference.

16. The petition is misconceived and, accordingly, stands dismissed. Dated : March 11, 2025 VKS VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

appearing for the NIA as well as learned counsel for the petitioner on the maintainability of the petition.

5. The controversy regarding the nature of order allowing for extension of detention in custody of accused person has already came before the Guwahati High Court in the case of in the case of Jai Krishna Sarma Vs. Union of India (2020) 1 GLT 122, wherein the High Court held that order allowing for extension of detention in custody of accused person, is an interlocutory order in connection with the investigation. The Larger Bench of the Guwahati High Court in the case of (The State) The National Investigation Agency Vs. Akhil Gogoi, 2022 SCC OnLine Gau 1446, also upheld the same to be the correct proposition of law.

6. In view of above, as it is well settled that the order allowing the extension of detention of accused person is an interlocutory order and, therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the Special Counsel regarding the maintainability of the petition, is having no force and the same is hereby rejected.

7. Insofar as the another point of objection that though the prayer for default bail is sought by means of this petition, but an application is already filed before the court below, is concerned, the same has also no legs to stand, as in the present case, the order of detention is under challenge and the prayer is made for setting aside the said order with the consequential prayer that the petitioner may be enlarged on default bail. Therefore, this objection of the Special Counsel is also rejected.

8. While coming to merit of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case. As per the prosecution case, an application was received by the Central Government that attempts are being made by the leaders, cadres and sympathizers/ Over Ground Workers of CPI Maoist, a banned terrorist organization for re-energizing the decrepit influence in Northern Regional 3 Bureau comprising of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Delhi, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. Six persons were named in the F.I.R bearing NIA Case No. Rc-01/2023/NIA-LKW., namely, (i) Virendra @ Anjani @ Suraj- In- charge of State Organizing Committee of CPI (Maoist) in Delhi, (ii) Surendra, In-charge of State Organizing Committee of CPI (Maoist) in Punjab, (iii) Aman (petitioner), In-charge of State Organizing Committee of CPI (Maoist) in Haryana, (iv) Manish Azad @ Subhash, In-charge of State Organizing Committee of CPI (Maoist) in U.P., (v) Rohit Vidyarthi, U.P. and (vi) Ritesh Bidyarthi, U.P. It is further submitted that the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred under sub-Section (5) of Section 6 read with Section 8 of NIA Act, 2008, directed the National Investigation Agency to take up the investigation of the aforesaid case and the F.I.R. bearing NIA Case No. Rc-01/2023/NIA-LKW was registered at P.S. NIA, Lucknow on

16.06.2023, under Sections 120B, 121A I.P.C. and Sections 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thereafter, the investigation was started on 30.08.2024 and the NIA team conducted search of the house of petitioner and he was called for investigation in NIA Regional OfÏce, Chandigarh. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken into custody on 31.08.2024 with the allegation that he is active member of Banned Organisation CPI Maoist and is involved for re-energising their decrepit influence in Northern Regional Bureau and as it was found that the named person in the F.I.R.-Aman and the petitioner is one and same person. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow and 3 days’ transit remand was given to produce him before Court No. 1, Special Court, Lucknow vide order dated 31.08.2024. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner was produced before the NIA Special Court on

04.09.2024 and was granted 10 days’ police custody, in pursuance of which, the petitioner was sent to judicial custody on 13.09.2024 and since then, he is confined at District Jail, Lucknow. It has also been submitted that the National Investigation Agency vide application dated 21.11.2024 prayed for grant of extension of judicial custody of the petitioner, which was allowed on 26.11.2024 granting extension for 45 days. Thereafter, on 06.01.2025, again application was given by the Agency for grant of further extension of 45 days without 4 any report of Public Prosecutor. However, though on 07.01.2025, report of Public Prosecutor was presented in sealed cover, but neither the copy of the said report nor any ground of extension was communicated to the petitioner. Thereafter, the said application was allowed vide impugned order dated 09.01.2025 and the Special Court again granted extension of 45 days to the Agency for investigation.

10. Relying on the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Mujjamil & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 291of 2024), as well as decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Waheed-ur-Rehman Parra Vs. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, (2022) 12 SCC 240, Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 602 and Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Vs. State of Gujarat, (2023) 6 SCC 484, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that extension of time is not an empty formality. The Public Prosecutor has to apply his mind before he submits a report/application for extension of time. It has also been submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the court below to give specific reasons in the order for extension of detention. It has, thus, been submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner may be granted concession of default bail under Section 187 of B.N.S.

11. Refuting to the prayer of the petitioner, learned Special Counsel for the NIA submitted that the material available to the Investigation Agency during the course of investigation, cannot be mentioned in the application for extension of time, as the same can hamper the manner of investigation in the offence related to UAPA Act. As a result, the sealed cover report of Public Prosecutor was placed before the court below along with the case diary containing 225 parchas and after considering the progress of investigation, the Special Court was satisfied. Learned Special Counsel further submitted that no written objection was filed by the petitioner before the Special Court and, therefore, considering the material available in the case diary as well as the report of Public Prosecutor, 45 days’ time of detention was extended by the Special Court. She also submitted that charge sheet was submitted on 24.02.2025, i.e., within 180 days by preparing 247 parchas of the case diary. It has, thus, 5 been submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below.

12. Relying on the decision of Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya (supra), learned Special Counsel submitted that accused is not entitled to know the contents of the report of Public Prosecutor, but he is entitled to oppose the grant of extension of time on the grounds available to him in law. She also submitted that in the case of Zulfikar Ali Barodawala s/o Ali Barodawala & Anr. Vs. NIA (Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2024), Bombay High Court observed that material available to the Agency could not have been disclosed to the accused person, since the investigation has not been completed. It has also been submitted that the decision relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & Ors. (supra) will not apply in the present case, as in the said case, charge sheet was not filed within the statutory period. Similarly, the case of Mujjamil & Ors. (supra) is also not applicable in the present case as in the present case, investigation was continuously going on and at the time of passing the impugned order, 225 parchas were produced before the Special Court and at the time of filing of charge sheet, total 247 parchas were filed. It is, thus, submitted that the petition is misconceived and may be dismissed.

13. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Counsel appearing for the NIA as also gone through the contents of the petition, F.I.R., impugned order as well as other relevant documents including the decisions relied by learned counsel for both the parties.

14. The impugned order clearly reveals that request for extension of custody of the accused for further investigation was made by placing 225 parchas before the Special Court. It is also evident that the Public Prosecutor’s report was also placed in the sealed cover. Bombay High Court, in the case of Zulfikar Ali Barodawala (supra) observed that the material contained in the case diary should not be disclosed to the accused till the investigation is completed. Further, in the case of Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that contents of report of Public Prosecutor should not be provided to the accused and he is entitled to oppose the grant of 6 extension of time on the grounds available to him in law. Moreover, as the charge sheet has already been filed, a photocopy of the report of the Public Prosecutor, which was placed before the Special Court, is available before this Court. The said report of the Public Prosecutor dated

06.01.2025 clearly reveals that the analysis of data of hard drive is being done. The analysis of mirror image of some suspicious mobile numbers and incriminating images are also being done. The said report also reveals that 13 points are mentioned in the said report related to the investigation, which was going on. Evidently, as the points mentioned in the Public Prosecutor’s report were related to the strategy of investigation, the same should not be discussed in the order for extension of detention. Moreover, admittedly, the charge sheet has also been filed within the time limit of 180 days.

15. In view of above facts and discussions, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Special Court, warranting any interference.

16. The petition is misconceived and, accordingly, stands dismissed. Dated : March 11, 2025 VKS VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench