Recently, the Supreme Court has affirmed that a Magistrate cannot grant extensions to investigation agencies for the purpose of carrying out investigations under Sec167, CrPC when the accused is charged under the UAPA. This decision was made by relying on the case of Bikramjit Singh v State of Punjab. This post seeks to enquire into the law on this point by adverting to a textual analysis of relevant provisions and discussing the said case law.
Overview: Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case
The Court, granting bail to the accused in Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case, noted that the factual allegations made against the appellant do not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence under sections 15, 17, and/or 18 of the UAPA
Reconciling Bail Law under UAPA in terms of a Regulation Based Model
While comparing bail provisions of the UAPA with prior anti-terror legislations, the Law Commission noted that bail under the UAPA is more liberal as compared to its predecessors and that in previous anti-terror.... []