NAJMUS SAKIB  Vs NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

CRL.M.C. 2560/2020 & CRL.M.C. 2561/2020 Page 1 of 19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 14.01.2021
% Pronounced on : 28.01.2021
+ CRL. M.C. 2560 /2020
NAJMUS SAKIB ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Trideep Pais and Ms. Megha
Bahl, Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Sharma, SPP
+ CRL. M.C. 2561 /2020
AL MAMUN KAMAL ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Trideep Pais and Ms. Megha
Bahl, Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Sharma, SPP

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
JUDGMENT
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR , J.
1. The present petition has been filed und er section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to set aside the impugned orders dated
16.12.2020 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge -03, Special Judge,
2021:DHC:309

CRL.M.C. 2560/2020 & CRL.M.C. 2561/2020 Page 2 of 19
NIA, Patiala House Court , New Delhi, whereby period of investigation and
custody of above petitioners was extended for a further period of 45 days
with the directions to the investigating agency to expedite the investigation.
2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner Najmus Sakib is a
twenty -two year old student of B.Sc (Ho nours) Computer Science a t
Dumkal College, Murshidabad affiliated to Kalyani University, West
Bengal and he recently gave his 4th Semester examinations form Jail No. 8,
Tihar Jail Complex where he is currently lodged. And petitioner Al Mamun
Kamal is arou nd 36 years old wage labourer, who last worked as a mason
and driver during lockdown and his family holds the Priority Household
ration card under the National Food Security Act, 2013. He is currently
lodged in Jail No. 4, Tihar Jail Complex.
3. Briefl y stated, i t is stated in the present petition s that as per the FIR
registered on 11.09.2020, the “suspected offence” was that a group of
“jihadi terrorists” inspired by the globally proscribed terrorist organization
Al Qaeda, consisting of more than 10 m embers mostly of Bengali origin
were planning “anti -national/terrorist” activities at several locations in India.
The present petitioners are not named in the said FIR.
4. Both the petitioners were arrested on 19.09.2020 in the early hours
from their p ermanent residence at Murshidabad district, West Bengal. As
per the seizure memo, a laptop, a phone, a personal diary, a bunch of 17
loose papers, xerox of a passbook and xerox of voter card were seized from
the house of petitioner Najmus Sakib and his arrest was shown from BSF
Camp, BOP, Jalangi, Murshidabad the same morning. From the house of
2021:DHC:309

CRL.M.C. 2560/2020 & CRL.M.C. 2561/2020 Page 3 of 19
petitioner Al Mamun Kamal , as per the seizure memo , a money receipt
book in the name of a Shiksha Madarasa, three phones (including two
keypad ones), and some religious literature were seized pursuant to search
operation. 8 other accused persons including the named accused were
arrested on 19.09.2020 the same day. 2 other persons were also
subsequently arrested on 26.09.2020 and 01.11.2020. Total eleven pers ons
have been arrested in this case so far.
5. On the same day i.e. on 19.09.2020, both the petitioners were
produced before the Special Judge, NIA, City Sessions Court, Kolkata, West
Bengal , where the Transit remand was granted for the accused/petit ioners to
be produced before NIA Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on or
before 24.09.2020. On 22.09.2020, both the petitioners we re produced
before the Ld. Special Court, NIA Patiala House Courts, New Delhi where
the application s seeking four day s of police custody of both the petit ioners
were allowed.
6. On 26.09.2020, application s seeking thirty days judicial custody of
both the petitioners w ere allowed and they were remanded to JC till
23.10.2020. On 22.10.2020 appli cation s for extens ion of judicial custody of
both the petitioner s was allowed till 21.11.2020. On 21.11.2020,
applications for extension of judicial custody of both the petitioners were
allowed till 16.12.2020 . Further on 10.12.2020 applications for extension of
time for i nvestigati on and period of detention of both the petitioners were
moved by the investigating officer and arguments were heard on the
applications .
2021:DHC:309

CRL.M.C. 2560/2020 & CRL.M.C. 2561/2020 Page 4 of 19
7. On 16.12.2020 , the impugned orders were passed by the Ld. Trial
Court , whereby the Ld. Trial Court exten ded the period of investigation and
the period of detention of the petitioners herein by 45 days under
S.43D( 2)(b) of the UAP A. Both the petitioner s were remanded to judicial
custody on the same date vide a separate order. Aggrieved by these
impugned ord ers, the present petition s have been filed.
8. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioners, Ld. SPP for the
respondent and perused the records of the case.
9. Ld. counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the
impugned orders remandi ng the petitioners to judicial custody and extending
their detention by 45 days are arbitrary and without any basis. The
application was moved 7 days before the 90th day of the petitioners custody
were to expire were moved with the sole purposes of thwart ing the
petitioners right t o move statutory bail U/s 167(2) of Cr.P.C.
10. It is further submitted that all the documentary and electronic
evidence in the form of phone, laptop were already in the custody of the
investigating officer since 19.09.2020 , the day on which the petitioners were
arrested , so there is no threat of destruction of the same by the petitioners. It
is further submitted that when police custody of the petitioners was sought
on 22.09.2020, it was submitted in the application by the resp ondent that
data retrieved from electronic devices of the petitioners were under analysis
and the same was needed to be confronted with them, so, their further police
custody remand was not sought. It is further submitted that after 4 days of
2021:DHC:309

CRL.M.C. 2560/2020 & CRL.M.C. 2561/2020 Page 5 of 19
the police cu stody and after being confronted with the retrieved data, the
presence of the petitioners was not required.
11. It is further submitted that one of the ground taken by the
investigating officer for non filing of the charge sheet is the delay in the
analys is of the data retrieved from digital exhibits. It is further submitted
that the application of the investigating officer reveals that the electronic
exhibits were sent to CFSL Chandigarh on 05.10.2020 after two weeks of
their seizure and a reminder was s ent to CFSL only on 25.11.2020 and to the
Indian Computer Emergency Response Team on 26.11.2020 after a delay of
two months.
12. It is further submitted that a clone or “IOs copy” of the data
submitted for analysis should have been taken from the CFSL in September
itself for confrontation but the same was not done. It is further submitted
that the investigating officer cites “pandemic situation ” for delay in getting
response from the CFSL but the same cannot be cited as a reason to deprive
liberty to a citizen. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon “S. Kasi
Vs. State” [2020 SCC OnLine SC 529 , whereby the Supreme Court
observed that the pretext of lockdown cannot be u sed to deny the rig hts of
the accused U/s 167(2).
13. It is further submitte d that another ground of delay citied is that the
translation s have not been done yet of the data retri eved or yet to be
retrieved which pertains to taped conversation s of the accused persons and
the chats are in Bangla. It is further submitted that if the alleged
conversations between the accused persons were not known till now, being
2021:DHC:309

CRL.M.C. 2560/2020 & CRL.M.C. 2561/2020 Page 6 of 19
in Bangl a, then how it was concluded that the same were incriminating and
on what basis the petitioners were arrested.
14. It is further submitted that one of the main reaso n for granting of
extension of time for investigation by the Ld. Trial Court is the voluminous
nature of data retrieved from the digital exhibits being 243 GB but neither
the application by the IO nor the order of the Court lays down the
voluminous data r etrieved. It is further submitted that no specific role of the
petitioners has emerged during the investigation so far and even in the
application filed on 10.12.2020, extension of period of investigation does
not lay down any specific reason for detention of the petitioners. It is further
submitted that the impugned order does not reflect independent scrutiny of
progress of investigation by the public prosecutor or by the Court and do not
reflect any independent application of mind by the public prosecutor . It is
further submitted that the report of the public prosecutor is to be submitted
before the Court and not to the investigating officer which reveals lack of
independent exercise by the prosecutor in preparing his report. It is further
submitted that petitioner Al Mamun Kamal is a daily wages earner and has a
family to support and petitioner Najmus Sakib is a student of B.Sc
(Honours) Computer Science.
15. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. SPP for the respondent
that during the investigati on involvement of the petitioners alongwith 1 0
other persons had emerged and searches were conducted at their respective
addresses on 19.09.2020 and many incriminating material and documents
were seized. He further urged that during the investigation it h as emerged
2021:DHC:309

CRL.M.C. 2560/2020 & CRL.M.C. 2561/2020 Page 7 of 19
that the petitioners conspired with other accused persons to recruit members
to the group which was inspired by the ideology and affiliated to terrorist
organization Al -Qaeda. He further submitted that on e Lap Top and one
mobile phone alongwi th some incriminating documents were seized from
the residential premises of petitioner Najmus Sakib and 3 mobile phones
alongw ith incriminating documents were seized from the residential
premises of petitioner Al Mamun Kamal on 19.09.2020 and the seized
exhibits have been sent to CFSL for forensic analy sis on 5.10.2020, report
of which is awaited.
16. It is further submitted that priorities letters dated 25.11.2020 and
15.12.2020 were sent to CFSL to expedite the forensic analysis and submit
the report. It is further submitted that after due follow up of the matter on
regular basis, IO copy containing mirror image of mobile phone s of the
petitioners was received from CFSL on 25.12.2020 which is being
scrutinized. It is further submitted that during scr utiny of the above data
with the help of Bangali knowing persons , many incriminating chats
between the group members as well as with Pakistan and Bangl adesh based
Al Qaeda handlers was found. All the chats were short listed and sent to
various translati on agency to provide translation of the chats from B engali to
Engl ish on 07.12.2020 and the report is awaited and the reminder was sent
to translation agency on 29.12.2020. It is further submitted that the reply
was received from the various translating agency on 29.12.2020, whereby it
was intimated that 10 translators have been deployed for this work and only
2021:DHC:309

CRL.M.C. 2560/2020 & CRL.M.C. 2561/2020 Page 8 of 19
40% of the work could be completed as the volume of data is more than
20000 pages.
17. It is further submitted that Public Prosecutor had given pr oper
justification in his PP report submitted before the Special Court and after
perusing the PP report, the Special Court granted extension of investigation
period beyond 90 days for 45 more days under the provisions of Section
43D(2)(b) of UA(P) Act 1967 and the petitioners have not been able to show
any exceptional circumstances to warrant interference with the order of the
Ld. Special Judge NIA.
18. It is further submitted that on 14.12.2020, statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C of
a crucial witness has been re corded which clearly highlights the role of the
accused person. It is further submitted that the police custody remand of
petitioner s was taken for 4 days during the initial stage of investigation.
They were examined to unearth the conspiracy and to know the name of his
accomplices and at that time forensic analysis report of seized electronic
exhibits were not available and as such they could not b e confronted with
the data but no w IO copy of mirror image of seized electronic exhibits have
been received from CFSL on 25.12.2020 which is being analyzed so that
subsequent ly he could be taken into po lice custody for confrontation.
19. It is further submitted that digital exhibits seized in Kerala on
19.09.2020 , was brought to Delhi on 21.09.2020 and the sa me were sent to
CFSL on 22.09.2020. Further exhibits seized in Murshidabad on 19.09.2020
were received by the CIO at Delhi on 22.09.2020. It is submitted that as 9
accused persons were in police custody, they were being examined
2021:DHC:309

CRL.M.C. 2560/2020 & CRL.M.C. 2561/2020 Page 9 of 19
regarding their roles, ass ociates and other facts relevant to the investigation
and since the digital exhibits were very large in number, they were sent to
different CFSL’s to distribute their work load so that report could be
obtained at an early date and reminders were accord ingly sent to the
CFSL’s for early report. It is further submitted that CFSL did not provide
IO copy immediately and it was provided only on 25.12.2020 after three
reminders and it is being scrutinized. It is further submitted that thereafter
accused pe rsons need to be confronted with the data for the purposes of
further investigation and the accused persons are to be confronted with the
data obtained with the digital exhibits of other accused persons also
specially in the light of chats and communicatio n which took place between
group members of various encrypted and secure platforms. It is submitted
that the data is voluminous and due to Covid -19 pandemic and shortage of
staff, the analysis is taking time and further the pandemic situation has not
affected the pace of investigation and the investigation has been carried out
in remote locations at West Bengal as well as Kerala.
20. It is further submitted that large number of phone calls of the
petitioners were recorded and a summary report was obtained, wherein
incriminating conversations regarding procurement of weapon etc. had taken
place between the group members. It is further submitted that as 70
number s of calls have been recorded, transcript of the calls took substantial
time and th e same has now been received and the petitioner s are to be
examined in the light of the findings of the transcript. It is further
submitted that all the issues have been specifically dealt by the Special
2021:DHC:309

CRL.M.C. 2560/2020 & CRL.M.C. 2561/2020 Page 10 of 19
Judge and the order has been passed on correct app reciation of facts and
submission in the PP report.
21. In the instant case, the Ld. Special Judge (NIA) has extended the
period of investigation and custody of petitioners for a further period of 45
days with the directions to the investigating agency to expedite the
investigation on an application U/s 43D [2(b)] UA(P) Act moved for seeking
extension of investigation period / detention of the petitioners.
22. In State Vs. Shakul Hameed, (2019) 6 SCC 350 , the Supreme Court
has declared as to what are the ingredients for extension U/s 43D [2(b)]
UA(P) Act , the same are :
(1) It has not been possible to complete investigation within the
period of 90 days ;
(2) A report to be submitted by the Public Prosecutor;
(3) The said report indicating the pr ogress of investigation and
the specific rea sons for detention of the accused beyo nd the
period of 90 days.
(4) Satisfaction of the court in respect of the Report of the Public
Prosecutor.
23. The counsel for the petitioner s has relied upon :
1. Nayan tara Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra [2020 SCC OnLine
Bom 873]
2. Shino John Vs. State of Kerala [2018 SCC Online Ker 2392]
3. Shaikh Moin Shaikh Mehmood Vs. State of Maharashtra [2020
SCC OnLine Bom 968, Division Bench]
2021:DHC:309

CRL.M.C. 2560/2020 & CRL.M.C. 2561/2020 Page 11 of 19
4. Unnikrishnan Vs. State of Ker ala [2015 SCC OnLine Ker
31590, Division Bench].
5. Notifications by Ministry of Home Affairs on “Unlock” or
Reopening” dated 29.08.2020, 30.09.2020 and 27.10.2020.
6. Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra [(1994) 4
SCC 602].
7. Sanjay K umar Kedia Vs. Intelligence Officer, NCRB [(2009)
17 SCC 631]
8. S. Kasi V. Stae [2020 SCC OnLine S C 529]
9. S. Karan Vs. State [2015 SCC On Line Kar 5017]
24. The Ld. SPP for the respondent has relied upon:
1. The State of Maharashtra Vs. Surendra P undik Gadling and Ors.
2019(3) SCALE 379.
2. Syed Maqbool Vs. National Investigation Agency 2014(4) JCC
2854.
3. Ishrat Jahan Vs. State 2020 SCC OnLine Del 862.
4. Sharjeel Imam Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC OnLine Del
734.
5. Mohd. Maroof @ Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State MANU/DE/1552/
2015.
25. As far as the contention of the Ld. counsel for the petitioners that
neither the Ld. APP nor the Ld. Special Judge has applied their mind and
the application has been moved by the Ld. APP without satisfying himself
as to whether there is any requirement for seeking further extension of the
custody and the application for extension of investigation period has been
moved under the signatures of the IO and that Special Judge has extended
2021:DHC:309

CRL.M.C. 2560/2020 & CRL.M.C. 2561/2020 Page 12 of 19
the remand pe riod in a mechanical manner and without application of mind
has no force in it.
26. In the present case, the application/report clearly depicts the reasons
for not completing the investigation in 90 days. The application/report also
discloses the prog ress made in the investigation and the reasons for
extending the investigation beyond the period of 90 days. The relevant para
are reproduced as under:
“12. That during the investigation it emerged that all associates
appear to be highly radicalized and motivated to commit
terrorist acts and further their jihadi ideology and activities.
Several incriminating chats, photos and videos were found in
the data extracted from the mobile phone of accused Murshid
Hasan @ Sofiq (A -1), as per IO copy of the data received from
Cert-In, New Delhi. Accused person along with his associates
was active on various social medial platforms i.e. Telegram,
Facebook etc . and hatched a conspiracy for mobilizing and
raising funds for procuring weapons and committing disrupt ive
acts. Scrutiny of the above mentioned data of Telegram,
Facebook and WhatsApp of the Murshid Hasan @ Sofiq (A-1)
was done and the same has been sent to Anubhav Multilingual
Services [Registred Translation Firm) for the translation from
Bengali to Eng lish. The scrutiny of the data extracted from the
mobile device of Iyakub Biswas (A-6) is being done which
would then be sent to Anubhav Multili ngual Services for
translation from Bengali to English.
13. That electronic exhibits seized from the accused persons
have been sent to Cert -In on 22.09.2020 and CFSL, Chandigarh
on 05.10.2020 and request was made to complete the data
extraction and submit the report at the earliest. However, the
same is awaited till date and in this regard, remin der letter
dated 25.11.2020 was sent to CFSL Chandigarh and letter dated
26.11.2020 was sent to Cert -In, New Delhi to expedite the
2021:DHC:309

CRL.M.C. 2560/2020 & CRL.M.C. 2561/2020 Page 13 of 19
process of submitting the report. However, CFSL Chandigarh
has stated as the number of digital exhibits is very large (02
Lapto p, 15 mob iles, 37 sims, 06 SD card) and due to pandemic
situation, there is acute shortage of staff. The CFSL authorities
assured that the analysis is under process and the report would
be sent at the earliest. The data fr om the digital exhibits of 8
(eight) a ccused persons is to be received from CFSL
Chandigarh. They have been also requested to submit the IO
Copy of the data at the earliest so that the same could be
scrutinized and translated. The I O Copy of the digital exhibits
of 2 (two) accused have been received from Cert -In, New D elhi
and the date for 1 (one ) accused is yet to be received. As such
till date the extracted data of total nine (9) accused persons are
yet to be received. After receiving the extracted data from
CFSL, Chandigarh and Cert -In, New Delhi, the same has to be
scruti nized and translated. This data would be voluminous and
crucial for unearthing the conspiracy hatched by this group.
Based on the new f acts which are likely to be discovered after
scrutiny of th e data, the examinatio n of accused persons would
be required in the interest of investigation.
14. That during investigation done so far, large number of
phone calls of above arrested accused persons were recorded
which need to be translated from Bengali to Hindi which is
voluminous in nature. The same needs to be analy zed as it may
result in discovery of new facts relevant to the investigation of
the said case . Further various electronic exhibits were seized
and sent to CFSL and forensic report is awaited, which upon
recei pt needs to be translated and a nalyzed in order to unearth
the entire conspiracy . During investigation some facts relat ed to
Orissa, Bihar and J& K have been emerged which needs filed
investigation in the interest of the case. Further mirror image of
mobil e data of accused Murshid Hassan @ Sofiq (A-1) and
Iyakub Biswas (A -6), received from Cert -in contain lots of
incriminating chats/documents/images in Bengali language
which need to be translated from Bengali to English and the
2021:DHC:309

CRL.M.C. 2560/2020 & CRL.M.C. 2561/2020 Page 14 of 19
same has been sent to transla tion agency but the report is
awaited. ”
27. In “State of Maharahstra Vs. Surendra Pundlik Gadling (2019) 5
SCC 178 ”, there was no report by the APP but there were two applications,
by the police (one by the investigating Officer and other by the State of
Maharashtra through ACP. The later application only carried an
endorsement by the APP. The issue before the Court was, whether the said
documents could be considered to be the report of the APP. The Court
acknowledged the infirmities in the two reports and held:
“A clarity in the form of a proper endorsement by the public
prosecutor that he had perused the grounds in the earlier
document submitted by the IO and, thus, was satisfied that a
case had been made out for extension of time to complete the
investigation would have obviated the controversy”
28. In Gadling (supra) , it was held that even without such a report by the
APP, endorsement on the IOs application would suffice. In the present case,
the application for extension has been endo rsed by the APP and as held in
Judgment “supra” that it “is more of substance than form” which is the
question in each case. Therefore, in my opinion, the report satisfies the
requirement of Section 43 of UA(P) Act.
29. As far as the question of non app lication of mind by the Ld. ASJ in
passing the impugned order mechanically is concerned , the relevant portion
of the impugned order is reproduced hereinbelow:
“I have considered the rival submissions and gone through
the CD and PP report.
2021:DHC:309

CRL.M.C. 2560/2020 & CRL.M.C. 2561/2020 Page 15 of 19
The main conten tion of Ms. Megha Bahal, counsel for
accused No. 5 and 12 is that the entire documentary
evidence is already in the custody of NIA and investigating
agency cannot cite pandemic for keeping the accused in
custody. In this regard, she has relied upon the j udgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Kasi Vs. State (2020 SCC
OnLine SC 529). While so arguing, it is contended that
electronic exhibits were sent to CFSL only on 05.10.2020
i.e. two weeks after their seizure and reminder was sent to
CFSL only on 25.11. 2020 and to CERT -In on 26.11.2020
i.e. after a delay of almost two months. A clone of the data
should have been taken from CFSL in September itself but
it was not done. IO has not given any specific averment
about the A -5 and A -12.
Considering the subm ission, it is correct that long time
has been taken for this report. However, in order to ensure
fair investigation, FSLs have not been kept under the
control of investigating agency and therefore, investigating
agency cannot be held responsible for th e delay caused by
FSL in sending the digital data after its retrieval. It is
correct that pandemic cannot be allowed to be used by the
investigating agency for not completing the investigation.
However, it is not a ground taken by investigating agency
for not completing the investigation should not have taken
180 days but as the data is around 243 GB, it cannot be
translated in a very short period and even after the
translation, its analysis and investigation is required, which
would certainly take more time.
It is further contended that the application reveals that
there is not a single averment against A -5 and A -12 and
therefore, ld. PP has not assessed how detention of A -5 and
A12 will help the investigation. Ld. Counsel has relied
upon the judgme nt of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hitendra
Vishnu Thakur V. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602
and Sanjay Kumar Kedia V. Intelligence Offficer, NCRB
(2009) 17 SCC 631 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court had
2021:DHC:309

CRL.M.C. 2560/2020 & CRL.M.C. 2561/2020 Page 16 of 19
laid down conditions to be specified for seeking ex tension
of investigation period and that compelling reasons need to
be shown for allowing application seeking extension of
period of investigation and it should not be merely granted
because the investigating agency has asked for it.
There is n o contest to the legal prepositions cited by ld.
Counsel. However, given the fact that the present
investigation involves a large number of accused, its
geographical extent is from West Bengal to Kerala, it
involves a huge digital data for retrieval of wh ich, the
agency is dependent upon an independent agencies such as
FSL and CERT -In, the data already recovered which is
required to be analyzed is 243 GB, I find that it cannot be
rather it is the reason given by FSL Chandigarh for not
retrieving the data d ue to shortage of staff on the issue of
COVID -19 pandemic. Thus, its something which was
beyond the control of the investigating agency.
As regards the objection that the investigating agency
has not stated whether they have received data from the
digita l exhibits of A -5 and A -12, it has been submitted by
the Ld. Spl. PP that they have not received any such data
and therefore, as data from digital exhibits from a large
number of accused is yet to be received, investigation is
going to take time. Therefor e, I find that it is not on the
ground of pandemic that NIA is seeking extension of period
of investigation but for the reasons that it has not received
digital evidence from FSL.
On inquiries, it is submitted by CIO that the data which
has been sent by CFSL is around 243 GB. Thus, I find that
it would certainly require a detailed analysis and would take
long time to analyze such a huge data and therefore, it
cannot be said that investigation could not be completed
because of the laxity on the part of in vestigating agency.
2021:DHC:309

CRL.M.C. 2560/2020 & CRL.M.C. 2561/2020 Page 17 of 19
30. The most relevant para of the impugned order which clearly shows
the due application of mind by the Ld. ASJ is as follows:
“In these circumstances, the application at hand is allowed.
However, I find that accused have alrea dy been in custody
for a long time and therefore, a blanket extension of 90
days as sought by the investigating agency cannot be
granted. Therefore, U/s 43D(2) (b), period of investigation
and custody of accused is extended for a further period of
45 days with the directions to the investigating agency to
expedite the investigation. Copy of order be sent to NIA
as well as to the counsels. ”
31. The investigating agency in the instant case has sought extension for a
period of 90 days but the Ld. ASJ gr anted extension only for a period of 45
days, which clearly shows that after considering the progress of
investigation in the case, custody period was extended not to 90 days as
prayed for by the respondent but only to 45 days.
32. One of the contention s of the Ld. counsel for the petitioners is that
there were no compelling reason for extension of custody as all the material
for investigation was available with the respondent and the respondent has
been slow in proceeding with the investigation. He f urther argued that the
non receiving of the report from the CFSL Chandigarh cannot be a ground to
claim delay in investigation and he relied upon “S. Kasi Vs. State [2020
SCC OnLine SC 529”. I have already reproduced hereinabove in the
judgment the natu re of investigation carried out by the respondent till the
filing of the application/report. The grounds as enumerated in the
application/report are sufficient enough to extend the period for carrying out
the investigation and the same cannot be faulted. The said judgment is not
2021:DHC:309

CRL.M.C. 2560/2020 & CRL.M.C. 2561/2020 Page 18 of 19
applica ble to the facts of the present case. In the said case the Supreme
Court was examining a situation where the fact of non filing of charge sheet
qua the indefeasible right of the accuse d U/s 167 (2) Cr.P.C was interpreted
and the scope of provision similar to Section 43 D (2) proviso UA(P) Act
was not before the Court. In fact S Kasi’s case is governed by the
provisions of CrP.C. and not UA(P) Act. The judgment would be relevant
if the prosecution does not file charge sheet within 180 days.
33. One of the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the filing
of the application / report 7 days prior to the expiry of 90th day clearly shows
the malafide and has been done only with the sole purpose to deny the
statutory bail to the petitioner. I find no force in the contention of the
counsel for the petitioner because UA (P) Act provides for extension of
period of investigation for a further period of 90 days i.e. totaling to 180
days. It is only when the prescr ibed period of completing the investigation
is expiring and the investigation is not complete in that event the application
for extension of period of investigation lie. In case the application is moved
much prior to the period prescribed for completing th e investigation , it
would clearly be premature as there would be much time left for completing
the investigation within the prescribed period of investigation. In any case
there is no time period provided for moving such application , in case the
investiga tion is not complete within the prescribed period despite efforts.
34. As far as the contention that there was no compelling reasons , seeking
extension of time for completing the investigation, hereinabove in the
judgment I have already held that there w as justifiable grounds made out by
2021:DHC:309

CRL.M.C. 2560/2020 & CRL.M.C. 2561/2020 Page 19 of 19
the respondent in the application / report for seeking the extension.
Moreover , the Ld. ASJ after due application of mind extended the period to
only 45 days as against the 90 days as claimed by the respondent.
35. Therefore, in view of the discussions, mentioned hereinabove, I find
no merit in both the petitions, the same are, therefore, dismissed .
36. Trial court record be sent back forthwith alongwith a certified copy of this
judgment.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
JANUARY 28, 202 1
Sumant
2021:DHC:309