Recently, Bombay high court rejected Kalyan youth, Areeb Majeed’s bail application, and held that extension of his judicial custody and time extended for filing of chargesheet against him was not illegal. The HC held that till such time the NIA did not file a charge sheet, even a special court having jurisdiction to conduct trial under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act could grant such relief to the investigating agency in case of an accused charged under the NIA Act.
Areeb had approached the HC through his advocate Mubin Solkar, seeking quashing of an order passed by the sessions court, extending his detention and granting extension of time to prosecution for filing of charge sheet and an order extending his judicial custody. Advocate Solkar had contended before the division bench of Justice R.V. More and Justice S.C. Gupte that a special judge appointed by the Central Government alone had jurisdiction to try the petitioner, deal with his remand in custody or extend time for filing of charge sheet and ordinary courts were barred from doing so.
Areeb, through Advocate Holkar, informed the court that in February 2015, when he was produced before the court, the special judge presiding over the NIA court was on leave and in his absence, Areeb’s judicial custody was extended and further time to file a charge sheet was granted to prosecution by the sessions judge holding charge of the special NIA court under administrative order of the Principal Judge of the Sessions Court. Areeb, through Advocate Holkar, argued that the special judge appointed by the “Central Government” had powers to deal with custody or extend time for filing charge sheet and not the court appointed by “Principal Session Judge”. Citing these reasons, Areeb claimed he was entitled to statutory bail.
The judges however said that the trial of offences in a warrant case commences only after a charge is framed and not when the accused is brought before the court. They also said that at this stage (in the petitioner’s case), NIA itself had an option to investigate the offence and prosecute the accused for transferring the case to the state government for investigation and trial of offences.
“Then, of course, the state government itself has powers to investigate and prosecute the offences, which are not affected by anything contained in the IA Act,” the judges ruled. They then rejected Areeb’s bail application.
