1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Supreme Court upholds Unlawful Activities Act, denies bail in extremist funding case.</h1> The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the application of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the jurisdiction ... - Issues involved: Arrest and custody of petitioner, jurisdiction of investigating agencies, application of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, grant of bail.Arrest and Custody of Petitioner: The petitioner was arrested on 31st May, 2009, along with another individual based on disclosures made during interrogation regarding funding an extremist organization. The Chief Judicial Magistrate initially sent the petitioner to police custody and later allowed custodial interrogation in the Central Jail. Bail applications were rejected by the Magistrate and subsequently by the High Court and Sessions Judge.Jurisdiction of Investigating Agencies: The National Investigating Agency took over the investigation on 5th June, 2009, and filed a separate First Information Report. The NIA was granted custody of the petitioner for ten days initially, which was extended but later rejected. The Sessions Judge extended the investigation period by 60 days under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.Application of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: The petitioner's counsel argued that the allegations did not meet the criteria under Section 13 of the Act, and therefore, the provisions of Section 17 and 43D should not apply. The counsel contended that the petitioner could not have known about the unlawful activities of the organization at the time of arrest.Grant of Bail: The petitioner's counsel emphasized that there was no evidence linking the petitioner to any terrorist or unlawful activities. The recovery of funds from the petitioner was explained as being held on behalf of his mother. The counsel argued for the grant of statutory bail during the investigation period.Judgment: The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, rejecting the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel. The Court held that the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, were applicable to the case, and the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge to extend the investigation period was upheld. Further investigation into the allegations, including the recovery of funds, was deemed necessary, leading to the dismissal of the bail applications.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
