In Brief
A woman was arrested based on a complaint regarding recovery of materials related to CPI(Maoist). Initially charged under the IPC, the State sought to add UAPA offences. The Sessions Court permitted this; the Magistrate then extended her remand beyond 90 days. She petitioned the High Court, which quashed the UAPA proceedings, holding only a Special Court could try such offences. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that until the State designates a Special Court under Section 22 of the NIA Act, the Sessions Court has jurisdiction over UAPA offences investigated by State police. However, the Court found the Magistrate's remand extensions beyond 90 days illegal without Sessions Court authorization, though the absence of a default bail claim did not cure this defect.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.