High Court: PFI challenges decision to extend investigation period to 60 days, next hearing on January 25 – Pfi Challenges Decision To Extend Investigation Period To 60 Days

Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court
– Photo: Amar Ujala

hear the news

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has been challenged in the Delhi High Court on Monday by the arrested members of the organization against giving more time to complete the investigation in the case registered under the anti-terror law UAPA against the banned organization. A bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Talwant Singh fixed the next hearing on January 25.

The petitioners’ counsel Mohd Yusuf and others have termed the trial court’s December 19 order extending the time limit to conduct the probe by 60 days as wrong. He said the agency was given extra time without giving him any notice of the prosecutor’s report. The report has been submitted in a sealed cover. The counsel for NIA said that as per the earlier judgment of the High Court, the prosecutor’s report cannot be given to an accused in a UAPA case and in the present case, the trial court has heard the side of the accused. The counsel for the petitioners said that the investigating agency did not give any specific reason for extending the time limit for the investigation.

It was also argued that submission of the prosecutor’s report in a sealed cover was against the law. Under the UAPA, if it is not possible to complete the investigation within a period of 90 days, the trial court can extend it up to 180 days. A large number of alleged PFI activists were detained or arrested in several states during massive raids ahead of the nationwide ban imposed on PFI on 28 September 2022. After this, the government banned PFI and several of its affiliates for five years under UAPA.

Advocate trapped in case of obstructing court proceedings thrice
New Delhi. The High Court on Monday barred a lawyer for a period of one month from appearing through hybrid or virtual conferencing (VC) mode thrice for obstructing court proceedings. Justice Pratibha M Singh said that the lawyer who was appearing from his house was also playing the video. During this he was not following the decorum of the court. Directed that for a period of one month the IT team and Registry shall ensure that the counsel is not allowed to attend hybrid or VC hearings.

Accused of fraud will not get anticipatory bail by assuring meeting with Amit Shah
The High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a businessman accused of duping a businessman of Rs 2 crore by falsely assuring him of meeting Union Home Minister Amit Shah in connection with a railway contract. The court said that using the names of such constitutional officers to deceive the complainant exaggerates the gravity of the offence. In such a situation, there is no basis for granting anticipatory bail to the accused Anish Bansal.

Justice Swarkant Sharma said that further this court also notes that the accused persons have used the name of the Union Home Minister to induce the complainant to pay huge amount. Whereas he was well aware that the assurance being given to the victim was false. The allegation adds to the gravity of the offense that the names of such constitutional authority and his family were used to deceive the complainant.

Denial of hearing on interim bail plea of ​​two PFI leaders
The High Court refused to entertain the interim bail plea of ​​two leaders of the banned Popular Front of India (PFI) in a money laundering case. The court said that they should wait for the order of the lower court in this matter. PFI’s Delhi unit president Mohd Parvez Ahmed and office secretary Abdul Muket had sought interim bail in the case filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on the ground that the agency (ED) had not filed the charge sheet within the stipulated period of 60 days from the date of arrest. Found and this period was completed on November 21, 2022. His counsel Mujeeb Ur Rehman told the High Court that on December 17, 2022, he (his client) had moved the trial court to get statutory bail.

Expansion

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has been challenged in the Delhi High Court on Monday by the arrested members of the organization against giving more time to complete the investigation in the case registered under the anti-terror law UAPA against the banned organization. A bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Talwant Singh fixed the next hearing on January 25.

The petitioners’ counsel Mohd Yusuf and others have termed the trial court’s December 19 order extending the time limit to conduct the probe by 60 days as wrong. He said the agency was given extra time without giving him any notice of the prosecutor’s report. The report has been submitted in a sealed cover. The counsel for NIA said that as per the earlier judgment of the High Court, the prosecutor’s report cannot be given to an accused in a UAPA case and in the present case, the trial court has heard the side of the accused. The counsel for the petitioners said that the investigating agency did not give any specific reason for extending the time limit for the investigation.

It was also argued that submission of the prosecutor’s report in a sealed cover was against the law. Under the UAPA, if it is not possible to complete the investigation within a period of 90 days, the trial court can extend it up to 180 days. A large number of alleged PFI activists were detained or arrested in several states during massive raids ahead of the nationwide ban imposed on PFI on 28 September 2022. After this, the government banned PFI and several of its affiliates for five years under UAPA.

Leave a Comment