2019 INSC 0517
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 863­864  OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 9783­9784 of 2018)
STATE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT
OF POLICE, NATIONAL INVESTIGATION
AGENCY, KOCHI     …..APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
SHAKUL HAMEED     …..RESPONDENT(s)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
Leave granted.
2. The   instant   appeals   have   been   filed   against   the   judgment
dated   12 th
  September,   2018   passed   by   the   High   Court   of
Judicature   at   Madras   granting   bail   in   default   to   the   accused
respondent   after   setting   aside   the   order   dated   12 th
  December,
2017 and 18 th
  January, 2018 passed by the Special Court(under
National   Investigation   Agency   Act,   2008),   Chennai   holding   that
the   detention   of   the   accused/respondent   for   a   further   period   of
1

90   days   was   not   in   compliance   of   Section   43D(2)(b)   of   the
Unlawful   Activities(Prevention)   Act,   1967(hereinafter   being
referred to as (“UAP Act, 1967”)
3. The   facts   giving   rise   to   these   appeals   insofar   as   they   are
relevant for disposal are that as per the case of the prosecution,
nine   named   persons   including   the   accused   respondent   were
involved   in   a   criminal   conspiracy   and   they   formed   a   terrorist
gang,   raised   funds   and   trained   some   personnel   and   facilitated
their travel from India to Syria to join the Daesh or the so­called
ISIS.     The   National   Investigating   Agency,   New   Delhi   registered   a
case no. R.C. No. 03/2017/NIA/DLI on 26 th
 January, 2017 under
Sections 120B  IPC and Sections 17,18, 18­B, 20, 38, 39 and 40
of the UAP Act, 1967 against nine accused persons including the
accused respondent(A­3). 
4. An   allegation   against   accused   respondent(A­3)   was   that   he
was   a   radicalized   youth   from   Chennai   who,   consequent   to   the
criminal   conspiracy   had   attempted   to   join   ISIS/Daesh   in   Syria.
However,   he   was   intercepted   by   the   Turkish   authorities   while
attempting   to   cross   over   to   Syria   and   deported   to   India   from
2

Turkey on 29 th
  August, 2015.   He was arrested and remanded to
judicial   custody   on   18 th
  September,   2017   as   he   is   alleged   to   be
one of the conspirators.
5. As per his date of arrest, 90 days prior thereto was to expire
on   16 th
  December,   2017.     On   11 th
  December,   2017,   the   Special
Public   Prosecutor   filed   a   report   before   the   Special   Court,
assigning   specific   reasons,   praying   for   the   extension   of   judicial
detention   of   the   accused   respondent   for   a   further   period   of   90
days   to   enable   the   investigating   agency   to   complete   the
investigation.     The   written   objections   were   filed   by   the   accused
respondent   on   11 th
  December,   2017.   The   Special   Court,   after
affording   opportunity   of   hearing   to   the   respondent   accused   who
appeared   through   his   counsel   and   taking   note   of   the   written
submissions   opposing   the   request   made   by   the   Special   Public
Prosecutor for judicial detention for a further period of 90 days as
prayed for, after recording its satisfaction on the specific reasons
assigned   by   the   Special   Public   Prosecutor,   granted   judicial
detention for a further period of 90 days under Sections 43D(2)(b)
of the UAP Act, 1967 vide its order dated 12 th
 December, 2017.
  
3

6. At   the   same   time,   application   filed   by   the   accused
respondent   for   bail   under   Section   167(2)   of   Code   of   Criminal
Procedure, 1973 read with Section 43D of the UAP Act, 1967 was
dismissed   vide   Order   dated   18 th
  January,   2018   having   become
infructuous. 
7. Aggrieved   by   the   aforesaid   orders   dated   12 th
  December,
2017   &   18 th
  January,   2018,   the   accused   respondent(A­3)   filed
appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act,
2008   before   the   High   Court.     The   High   Court   of   Madras,   on
appraisal of the record, arrived at the conclusion that the specific
reasons   which   have   been   assigned   by   the   Special   Public
Prosecutor in his report seeking extension of time does not meet
the   requirement   of  law   as  contemplated   under   Section   43D(2)(b)
of   the   UAP   Act,   1967   and   accordingly   set   aside   the   order   of   the
Special Court dated 12 th
 December, 2017 and 18 th
 January, 2018
and   in   consequence   thereof,   granted   statutory   bail   in   default   to
the   respondent   accused   under   its   Order   dated   12 th
  September,
2018 which is a subject matter of challenge in appeals before us.
4

8. As informed to this Court, that (A­1) Haja Fakkurudeen has
been   absconding   but   charge­sheet   has   been   filed   against   all   the
accused   persons   and   Khaja   Moideen   @   Abdullah   Muthalif(A­2)
was   arrested   on   15 th
  September,   2017   and   bail   was   granted   to
him  on  23 rd
  January, 2019 and Ansar  Meeran(A­4) was arrested
on   12 th
  February,   2018   and   bail   was   granted   to   him   on   19 th
November,   2018   and   the   case   is   pending   for   framing   of   charge
under   Section   228   of   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973.     The
case against A­5 to A­7 has been closed by NIA. 
9. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submits   that   Paras   8   to
12   of   the   report   of   Special   Public   Prosecutor   indicate   specific
reasons   like   need   for   further   NIA   custody   of   the   accused   as
envisaged   in   Section   43D(2)   of   the   UAP   Act,   1967,   to   verify   the
facts revealed through experts and for unravelling the conspiracy
in   the   case   for   the   detention   of   the   accused   respondent   for   a
further period of 90 days and once the satisfaction was recorded
by   the   learned   Judge   of   Special   Court   meeting   out   the
requirements   envisaged   under   Section   43D(2)(b)   of   the   UAP   Act,
1967, such satisfaction recorded after perusal of the record could
not   have   been   overturned   by   the   High   Court   unless   very   strong
5

reasons were forthcoming, which has not been pointed out under
the impugned judgment.   
10. Per   contra,   while   supporting   the   order   of   the   High   Court,
learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   submits   that   though   the
reasons   have   been   assigned   by   the   Special   Public   Prosecutor   in
his   report   which   may   be   relevant   for   further   investigation,   but
was   not   relevant   to   justify   further   detention   of   the   accused
respondent   for   a   further   period   of   90   days   and   that   being   the
mandate of law as envisaged in Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAP Act,
1967, no error was committed by the High Court in setting aside
the order of the Special Court under the impugned judgment.
11. Learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   in   alternate   further
submits that the detention of the accused respondent might have
been necessary  at the relevant point of time for further progress
of  the  investigation  but the  fact situation  has  later  changed and
the   co­accused   persons   who   are   similarly   situated(A­2)   &   (A­4)
have been granted bail on 23 rd
 January, 2019 and 19 th
 November,
2018 on merits by the competent Court of jurisdiction after filing
of   the   charge­sheet   and   in   either   of   the   order   of   bail   granted   to
6

the   accused   nos.   2   and   4,   prosecution   has   not   filed   any
application for cancellation. The present accused respondent(A­3)
is   also   on   bail   may   be  in   compliance  of  the   impugned   judgment
and   when   it   is   not   the   case   of   the   appellant   that   after   statutory
bail was granted to him in compliance of the impugned judgment
dated   12 th
  September,   2018,   he   has   committed   any   breach   or
violated the conditions of the bail granted to him.  At least, in the
given facts and circumstances, even if there is some merit in the
submission   made   by   the   appellant,   at   least   the   bail   which   was
granted   to   the   accused   respondent   in   the   changed
circumstances, may not be interfered with by this Court.
12. It   is   not   disputed   that   in   the   instant   cases,   the   accused
respondent(A­3) was arrested on 18 th
 September, 2017 and initial
period   of   90   days   from   the   date   of   arrest   was   to   expire   on   16 th
December,   2017   and   prior   thereto   on   11 th
  December,   2017,   the
report was submitted by  the Special Public Prosecutor  assigning
specific reasons for seeking  detention of the accused respondent
for   a   further   period   of   90   days   under   Section   43D(2)(b)   of   UAP
Act,   1967   and   after   a   copy   of   application   was   supplied   to   the
accused   respondent,   he   filed   his   written   objections   through
7

counsel and after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties,
the Special Court, after recording its satisfaction, in reference to
the   specific   reasons   assigned   for   detention   of   the   accused
respondent   beyond   a   period   of   90   days   allowed   the   application
filed   by   the   Special   Public   Prosecutor   vide   its   order   dated   12 th
December, 2017.
13. The extract of the report submitted by the Public Prosecutor
indicating   the   progress   of   the   investigation   and   the   specific
reasons   required   for   detention   of   the   accused   respondent   for   a
further period of 90 days as envisaged under Section 43D of the
UAP Act are stated as under:­
8. It   is   further   submitted   that   the   investigation   is
continued   the   facts   disclosed   by   the  accused   while   on
custody needs further verification and in progress.  The
electronic gadgets seized at the instance of the accused
needs   to   be   forensically   analysed.     In   this   regard   the
electronic gadgets seized from  accused were forwarded
to   C­DAC,   Thiruvananthapuram,   through   this   Hon’ble
Court,   needs   to   be   analysed   by   the   experts   of   C­DAC,
Thiruvananthapuram   and   report   yet   to   be   received.
The accused persons may be required for further police
custody   from   judicial   custody   for   the   purpose   of
investigation   as   envisaged   in   Section   43D(2)(b)   of   UAP
Act,   1967   to   verify   any   facts   being   obtained   from   the
forensic expert.
9. It is further submitted that investigation against the
absconding   accused   Haja   Fakkurudeen(A­1),   who   had
joined the activities of ISIS in Syria, and other accused
named in the FIR are in progress.  The travel details of
the   accused   are   being   verified   through   Immigration
8

authorities   to   confirm   the   complicity   of   the   accused
tour  and travels  to Syria  and  other  places.   A  number
of witnesses acquainted with facts of the case are yet to
be   examined   and   the   investigation   period   beyond   90
days   if   not   expended,   it   may   cause   serious   prejudice
and   enlarging   accused   Khaja   Mohideen   (A­2)   and
Shakul Hameed (A­3) on bail at this stage may hamper
the investigation also.
10. It   is   submitted   that   the   NIA   is   conducting
investigation   abroad,   on   the   role   of   accused   and
associates operating  from  abroad in this case.   In this
regard   requests   have   been   send   to   the   Republic   of
Singapore   under   Mutual   Legal   Assistance
Treaty(MLAT)   between   Republic   of   India   and   the
Republic of Singapore and the reply on certain aspects
are   yet   to   be   received   from   the   requested   country.
Further,   the   process   of   sending   request   to   the   United
States of America(USA) under Mutual Legal Assistance
Treaty(MLAT) between Republic of India and USA to get
the   details   of   social   media   accounts   and
communications between accused and their associates
in India and abroad is under progress.
11. It is further submitted that the NIA has taken
steps   to   unravel   the   larger   conspiracy   including   the
clandestine   terror   activities   of   the   accused,   their
association   with   other   terrorist   organizations,   their
possible locations in India and abroad and the sources
of   funding   etc.     Besides,   requisitions   were   sent   to   the
concerned service providers to get the CDR’s of all the
mobile   phones   recovered   and   the   other   numbers   used
by   the   accused   with   a   view   to   analyse   the   same   for
establishing   the   linkages   between   the   absconding
accused   and   field   verification   needs   to   be   done.     The
names accused in the FIR is yet to be secured and the
involvements   of   those   persons   have   also   been
investigated   and   investigation   is   in   crucial   stage   and
therefore it is not possible to complete the investigation
within   the   said   period   of   ninety   days.     Therefore,   as
indicated   the   progress   of   the   investigation   and   the
specific reasons above for the detention of the accused
beyond   the   said   period   of   ninety   days   extend   the   said
period   up   to   one   hundred   and   eighty   days   for   the
purpose of investigation.
12. It is further submitted that the investigation is
proceeding   in   the   right   direction.     Since   the   accused
9

are   hard   core   ISIS   ideologists,   detailed   further
interrogation is inevitable to collect more evidence and
for unravelling the larger conspiracy behind the crime.
There   may   be   imminent   threat   to   the   security   of   the
nation   if   the   accused   are   not   interrogated   in   detail,
more   evidence   is   not   collected   and   detailed
investigation   is   not   done   to   identify   and   secure   other
members of the group.” 
14. Before   we   proceed   to   examine   the   question   raised   in   the
instant   appeal   any   further,   it   may   be   apposite   to   take   note   of
Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAP Act, 1967:­
“43D. Modified   application   of   certain   provisions   of   the
Code.
(1) ­ ­ ­ xxx
(2) Section   167   of   the   Code   shall   apply   in   relation   to  a
case   involving   an   offence   punishable   under   this   Act
subject to the modification that in sub­section (2),­
(a) the   references   to   “fifteen   days”,   “ninety
days”   and   “sixty   days”,   wherever   they
occur,   shall   be   construed   as   references   to
“thirty   days”,   “ninety   days”   and   “ninety
days” respectively; and
(b) after   the   proviso,   the   following   provisos
shall be inserted, namely: ­
                  Provided   further   that   if   it   is   not   possible   to
complete   the   investigation   within   the   said   period   of
ninety   days,   the   Court   may   if   it   is   satisfied   with   the
report of the Public  Prosecutor  indicating  the  progress
of   the   investigation   and   the   specific   reasons   for   the
detention   of   the   accused   beyond   the   said   period   of
ninety days, extend the said period up to one hundred
and eighty days:
       Provided also that if the police officer making the
investigation under this Act, requests, for the purposes
of   investigation,   for   police   custody   from   judicial
10

custody  of any person in judicial custody, he shall file
an   affidavit   stating   the   reasons   for   doing   so   and   shall
also   explain   the   delay,   if   any,   for   requesting   such
police custody.”
15. The necessary ingredients of the proviso to Section 43D(2)(b)
of the UAP Act, 1967 has to be fulfilled for its proper application.
These are as under:­
A. It   has   not   been   possible   to   complete   the   investigation
within the period of 90 days.
B. A report to be submitted by the Public Prosecutor.
C. Said report indicating the progress of investigation and
the specific reasons for detention of the accused beyond
the period of 90 days.
D. Satisfaction of the Court in respect of the report of the
Public Prosecutor.
16. The   scope   of   Section   43D(2)(b)   of   UAP   Act,   1967   has   been
recently examined by a three Judge Bench of this Court in  State
of   Maharashtra   Vs.   Surendra   Pundlik   Gadling   &   Ors.   2019
SCC Online SC 188 and has not detained us any further.
17. Taking   note   of   the   specific   reasons   which   have   been
assigned  by  the  Special  Public  Prosecutor  in  his  report  of  which
reference has been made(supra), we are satisfied that the specific
11

reasons assigned by the Public Prosecutor fulfil the mandate and
requirement   of   Section   43D(2)(b)   of   the   UAP   Act,   1967   and   that
was   considered   by   the   learned   Judge   of   the   Special   Court   in
detail,   who   after   recording   its   satisfaction,   granted   detention   to
the accused for a further period of 90 days under its Order dated
12 th
 December, 2017.  
18. We cannot be oblivious of the changed circumstances which
has   been   brought   to   our   notice   regarding   the   present   FIR   dated
26 th
  January,  2017.     Charge­sheet  has  been  filed  against  all  the
four   accused   persons(A­1   to   A­4)   including   the   accused
respondent(A­3) on 13 th
  March, 2018 and the accused no. 2 and
accused   no.   4   are   on   bail   from   23 rd
  January,   2019   and   19 th
November, 2018 and the matter is pending for framing of charge
and   it   is   not   the   case   of   the   appellant   that   the   present   accused
respondent   after   being   enlarged   on   bail   in   compliance   of   the
impugned   judgment   dated   12 th
  September,   2018   has   committed
any breach or violated the conditions of grant of bail.  
19. To  conclude, we are not  in  agreement  with the  conclusions
arrived   at   by   the   High   Court   in   the   impugned   judgment   dated
12

12 th
  September,   2018   but   taking   note   of   the   later   developments
and   the   supporting   facts   brought   to   our   notice,   we   are   not
inclined to interfere with the final relief to the extent of granting
default   bail   to   the   accused   respondent   in   the   circumstances   of
the case on hand.  However, it may be open for the prosecution to
apply for cancellation of bail, if any exigency arises in future.  We
consider   it   further   to   direct   the   learned   Presiding   Officer   of   the
Special Court, NIA, to expedite and conclude the trial on or before
March,   2020.     Compliance   report   be   sent   to   the   Registry   of   this
Court.
20. Consequently,   the   appeals   are   disposed   of   in   the   above
terms.
  …………………………J.
(A.M. KHANWILKAR)
…………………………J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
NEW DELHI
May 07, 2019
13