Trained Judicial Officers Ignorant Of Procedure To Be Adopted In A Case Involving Offences Under The UAP Act: Madras HC, Directs Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy To Conduct A Refresher Course For The Judicial Officers

The Hon’ble Madras High Court has reprimanded trained Judicial Officers for being ignorant as to the procedure to be adopted in a case involving offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAP Act”).

The Bench comprising Justice P.N. Prakash and Justice N. Anand Venkatesh directed Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy to conduct a refresher course for the judicial officers, by focusing on the special enactments like UAP Act, POCSO Act, SC/ST Act, NDPS Act, etc. and make them aware of the procedure to be followed at the time of remand, extension of remand, extension of remand period from 90 days to 180 days, provided under certain enactments, taking cognizance of the final report etc.

Also Read - Delay in submitting the forensic test report due to the lack of adequate manpower poses a significant challenge to the administration of justice: Orissa High Court

The Division Bench noted that the Ambur police had registered a case against one Mir Anas Ali on July 30, 2022 on the charge of being associated with ISIS, and he was arrested on the same day for offences alleged under UAP Act and IPC after which he was remanded to judicial custody by a Magistrate.

Due to non-completion of investigation within 90 days of his arrest, the Mir Anas Ali preferred a bail application before the Magistrate on November 11, 2022 which was returned by the Magistrate on the ground that the bail plea could be preferred only before the Sessions Court.

Also Read - Admissions conducted through private counselling are per se illegal: Supreme Court dismisses plea of students admitted through private counselling

When the Appellant approached the Sessions Court, his default bail petition was forwarded to the Magistrate, with a direction that no papers must be sent to the Court of Session, till a final report is filed, cognizance is taken and the matter is committed to the Court of Session. The Hon'ble High Court observed that this direction given by the learned Sessions Judge, is in total ignorance of the provisions of the UAP Act and the judgment of the Full Bench in Jaffar Sathiq Vs. State [2021 (4) CTC 497].

Thereafter, the Magistrate denied bail to the Appellant on the ground that it had allowed petition filed by Ambur Police for extending the remand period from 90 to 120 days. The Hon'ble High Court noted that the petition for extension of remand period was filed after filing of the bail petition and therefore the denial of statutory bail on the ground of allowing a petition for extension of remand period which was filed after the former petition is contrary to the well settled law.

Also Read - Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

The Hon'ble Court further held that the learned Magistrate did not have the power and/or jurisdiction to entertain both the aforesaid petitions and whatever orders that were passed by learned Magistrate in the said two petitions, are non est in the eye of law and these orders are liable to be set aside on this ground alone, even without going into the merits of the case.

The Hon'ble Court granted relief to the Appellant observing that "as a Constitutional Court, we have to necessarily deal with this petition and recognize the statutory right of the appellant and grant the appropriate relief. While doing so, we find that the extension petition filed by the respondent was much after the filing of the statutory bail petition and that apart, the order that was passed in this petition has already been held to be non est in the eye of law. Consequently, there is no scope for extension of time and the statutory period has come to an end on 27.10.2022 and we have to necessarily grant default bail to the appellant."

CLICK HERE TO READ JUDGMENT