Court Emphasizes Statutory Safeguards Under Section 43-D(2)(b) of UAPA and Rejects Petitioners' Challenge to Prolonged Detention
The Delhi High Court, in a significant judgment dated August 31, 2026, dismissed a petition challenging the extension of detention of six Ukrainian nationals arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The petitioners, detained in connection with an alleged drone attack conspiracy linked to Myanmar, had sought relief against the order of the Special Court that extended their detention beyond the initial 90-day period to the maximum permissible limit of 180 days.
The case arose from an FIR registered by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on March 13, 2026, which accused the petitioners of illegally entering Myanmar from India on tourist visas and conducting training related to drone warfare for ethnic armed groups. After their arrest at Lucknow and Delhi airports, the petitioners were initially remanded to police custody, followed by judicial custody, with the period of investigation being extended multiple times.
On June 3, 2026, the NIA filed an application under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA read with Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking to extend the investigation and detention beyond 90 days. The petitioners opposed the extension, arguing that statutory conditions for extension were not met, that reasons for continued detention were vague and repetitive, and that the extension was granted mechanically without proper judicial scrutiny.
The Special Judge at Patiala House Courts allowed the NIA's application on June 4, 2026, after considering the Public Prosecutor's report and case diaries, finding that the investigation was ongoing and further time was necessary. The petitioners then approached the Delhi High Court under Section 528 of BNSS, challenging this extension.
The Court, presided over by Justice Madhu Jain, meticulously analyzed the statutory framework under Section 43-D(2)(b) of UAPA, which mandates that a Special Court must be satisfied about the progress of investigation and the specific reasons for continued detention before extending the detention period beyond 90 days. The Court observed that while these statutory safeguards are mandatory, the detailed reasoning need not be disclosed in the order if it risks compromising the investigation.
Rejecting the petitioners' contentions, the Court held that the Special Court had duly considered the report of the Public Prosecutor and the material evidence, including examination of electronic devices, financial transactions, and tracing of associates, which justified the extension. The Court emphasized that the statutory provision permits extension up to 180 days and does not require incremental extensions if the conditions are satisfied. The Court also clarified that no right to default bail arises if a valid extension order is passed before the expiry of 90 days.
The judgment further clarified that the petitioners' challenge could not be sustained merely on the ground that the reasons for extension were similar to those in earlier remand applications, as fresh investigative material had been placed before the Court. The Court also held that the Special Court's approach of passing a composite order for all petitioners was not improper given the common nature of allegations and investigation.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court found no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the extension order and dismissed the petition. The Court underscored the importance of balancing the rights of the accused with the necessity of completing complex investigations expeditiously and within the statutory framework.
This judgment reaffirms the procedural safeguards embedded in UAPA for detention extensions and clarifies the scope of judicial review in such matters, providing guidance for lower courts in handling similar cases.
Bottom Line:
Extension of detention beyond 90 days under Section 43-D(2)(b) of UAPA - Statutory requirements for extension include indicating progress of investigation and specific reasons for continued detention of the accused - Satisfaction of these requirements is mandatory but does not require disclosure of detailed reasoning in the order if it may affect ongoing investigation.
Statutory provision(s): Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Section 43-D(2)(b), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 187, Section 528
Hurba Petro v. Union of India, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2975220
