Public prosecutor’s report need not be given to accused: HC

A Division Bench of Justices Mukta Gupta and Anish Dayal held that the public prosecutor’s report need not be given to the accused when extension of remand is granted. However, when the accused is produced before the special court, he cannot be a “silent spectator” and the court has to consider the accused’s submissions while examining the report on the progress of investigation and the reasons for seeking further detention for continued investigation.

The High Court said the special court is required to satisfy itself that there is sufficient material to form a reasonable belief that prima facie an offence under UAPA is made out, though no reasons with regard to this is needed to be reflected in the order as the same would entail disclosure of the probe being carried out.

The HC said while extending remand, the special court must consider reasons which show the “personal satisfaction” of the public prosecutor on the “progress of the investigation”. The court must consider the reasons indicating why the investigation could not be completed within 90 days and further investigation is required to be carried out for which the extension is necessary.

The court further held that when the public prosecutor’s report is presented before the special court, it shall “apply its mind” to determine a “reasonable time” required to complete the probe and extend the detention for such period up to 90 days.

With respect to petitions of accused Zeeshan Qamar, Mizha Siddeeque, Shifa Haris, Hanan Gulzar Dar, Zamin Adil Bhat and Haris Nisar Langoo, the High Court did not find a reason to interfere with the special court’s order extending their remand and dismissed their bail pleas.

The court, however, directed that Mushab Anwar and Rahees Rasheed be released on bail after furnishing a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh each with two surety bonds each of the like amount.