High Court Rejects Challenge to Extended Detention
The Delhi High Court UAPA proceedings involving six Ukrainian nationals have resulted in the dismissal of their plea against extended detention. The Delhi High Court upheld their detention beyond 90 days and up to 180 days. The case concerns alleged drone warfare-related activities for Myanmar-based ethnic armed groups.
Justice Madhu Jain found that the Special Judge had considered the Public Prosecutor’s report and case diaries. The judge relied on these materials before granting additional time for investigation and detention.
The Court said in its August 31 order:
“At this stage, this Court does not find any material to conclude that the discretion exercised by the learned Special Judge was arbitrary or suffered from non- application of mind.”
NIA Arrested Petitioners at Lucknow and Delhi Airports
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) arrested the six petitioners at Lucknow and Delhi airports on March 13. The arrests followed an FIR registered under Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
According to the prosecution, the six Ukrainian nationals held Indian tourist visas. They belonged to a group of 14 Ukrainian nationals who entered India on tourist visas.
The prosecution alleged that they travelled to Mizoram without the required Restricted Area Permit or Protected Area Permit. They then allegedly entered Myanmar illegally.
Prosecution Alleges Drone Warfare Training in Myanmar
The prosecution accused the petitioners of involvement in training activities for Myanmar-based Ethnic Armed Groups.
The alleged activities involved drone warfare, drone operations, drone assembly and jamming technology.
These allegations formed part of the investigation that led to their arrest and detention.
NIA Chargesheet Does Not Currently Invoke UAPA Offences
The NIA filed its chargesheet in the case yesterday. However, the agency did not invoke UAPA offences in the chargesheet for now.
Instead, the NIA pressed charges solely under Sections 21 and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act.
The agency maintains that its investigation into the alleged UAPA offences remains underway.
Petitioners Spent 24 Days in Police Custody
Following their arrest, authorities produced the petitioners before the trial court on March 14. The court initially remanded them to police custody.
The trial court extended their police custody from time to time. Their police custody ultimately continued for 24 days, until April 06.
The court then remanded them to judicial custody. Authorities subsequently sought an extension of the investigation period and their detention.
Special NIA Court Extended Investigation to 180 Days
On June 03, the NIA applied for additional time to complete its investigation. It sought an extension beyond the initial 90 days and up to the maximum permissible period of 180 days.
The Special NIA Court allowed the application on June 04. It passed the order before the initial 90-day statutory period expired.
The petitioners then challenged that decision before the Delhi High Court.
Petitioners Questioned Need for Continued Custody
The petitioners argued that authorities had failed to meet the statutory conditions for extending their detention.
They also submitted that the NIA had not established why their continued custody remained necessary.
According to them, the Special Court mechanically granted the entire remaining 90-day period. They argued that the court should have considered whether a shorter extension would suffice.
Court Examines Section 43-D(2)(b) of UAPA
Justice Jain examined Section 43-D(2)(b) of UAPA while considering the challenge.
The provision requires the Special Court to examine the Public Prosecutor’s report before permitting detention beyond 90 days. The court must assess the investigation’s progress and the specific reasons supporting further detention.
The High Court noted that authorities gave the petitioners notice of the extension application. The Special Judge also considered their objections.
The Special Court found that the prosecutor’s report explained the investigation’s progress and the reasons for further detention. The case diaries corroborated those grounds.
Digital Evidence and Forensic Reports Remained Pending
Justice Jain also considered the scope of the ongoing investigation.
Investigators had to examine digital devices, extracted electronic data and financial transactions. They also awaited forensic reports.
The investigation required field inquiries involving additional entities. Investigators also needed to trace and examine other persons connected with the case.
These investigative requirements formed an important part of the Delhi High Court UAPA detention proceedings.
Grant of Maximum 180 Days Not Mechanical, Court Holds
The High Court rejected the argument that the Special Court acted mechanically by granting the maximum permissible investigation period of 180 days.
The Court held that granting the maximum statutory period does not, by itself, justify interference by the High Court.
Such interference would require demonstrable perversity or violation of statutory requirements. The High Court found neither in the present case.
High Court Rejects Default Bail Claim
The petitioners also claimed a right to default bail.
The High Court held that an accused cannot claim default bail merely because investigators did not file a chargesheet within the original 90 days. This principle applies when a competent court validly extends the investigation period before the initial period expires.
Justice Jain said:
“The learned Special Judge held that an application seeking extension was not required to be deferred until the 90th day merely to await the accrual of a claim for default bail. The application for extension was considered and allowed before expiry of the statutory period. Consequently, the petitioners cannot claim default bail merely on the basis that the initial period of 90 days subsequently expired.”
The Court further observed:
“Where a valid order extending the period for completion of investigation has been passed before the expiry of the prescribed period, no not been filed within the initial period of 90 days. The petitioners’ challenge, therefore, ultimately depends upon establishing that the order of extension itself was contrary to the statutory requirements. For the reasons recorded above, no such infirmity has been demonstrated.”
No Separate Elaborate Reasons Required for Each Petitioner
The High Court also rejected the petitioners’ argument about individual reasons. They had contended that the Special Judge needed to record separate and elaborate reasons for each petitioner.
The High Court found no defect in the order extending the investigation and detention period. It consequently dismissed their challenge.
