|
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday disposed of an appeal moved by six Ukrainian nationals challenging their detention and the extension of the investigation period, terming it not appealable under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act.
The High Court said that the extension of the investigation period under the NIA Act is not an appealable order. Petitioner Hurba Petro and other Ukrainian nationals had challenged the extension of the period of NIA investigation. They are in judicial custody after their arrest by the NIA in April 2026. The period of investigation was extended beyond 90 days to 180 days. Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan disposed of the appeal, terming the order as an interlocutory order that is not appealable. "This Court agrees with the above decisions that an order granting extension of time for investigation under Section 43D(2) of the UAPA being an interlocutory order would not be an appealable order under Section 21 of the NIA Act," the High Court said in the judgement passed on August 4. However, the High Court reiterated the position of law as held in Syed Shahid Yousuf (supra) that the order granting extension of time for investigation would only be amenable to judicial review under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 of BNSS. "In this background, as per the request made by the ld. Sr Counsel for the Appellants, the present appeal is disposed of with the direction that the same be renumbered as a Writ Petition under Section 482 of the CrPC/ Section 528 of BNSS and be listed before the concerned Roster Bench," the High Court directed. Senior advocate Nitya Rama Krishan alongwith Nitin Saluja appeared for Hurba Petro and others. They moved an appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, challenging the order of June 4, 2026, passed by the NIA Court, Patiala House Courts. After considering the application of the NIA, the trial court had extended the judicial custody beyond the period of 90 days to 180 days. At the outset, an issue of maintainability has been raised by Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Rahul Tyagi, who alongwith Jatin Khatri and Amit Rohila for the NIA, is on the ground that the order under challenge, being an interlocutory order, cannot be challenged before this Court in appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act, 2008. On the other hand, Senior Advocate Nitya Ramkrishnan, counsel for the Appellantshas relied upon a judgment in Anamul Ansari case passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court on December 12, 2024, wherein when the request for extension of judicialcustody was rejected by the Trial Court, the State went in Appeal before the High Court. The High Court said, "In the said case, this Court had considered the various provisions and precedents and had held that the appeal against such order would be maintainable." The NIA had arrested 6 Ukrainians and one US national, Matthew Aaron Vandyke, under UAPA in April. (ANI)
|
