New Delhi: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh (J&K&L) high court has held that the request of an investigating officer (IO) for extension of detention period beyond 90 days cannot be a substitute for the report of the public prosecutor under the provisions of section 43D (2)(b) of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), LiveLaw reported. It ruled that the status of the prosecutor is not a part of the investigating agency as it is an independent statutory authority.A division bench of Justices Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Vinod Chatterji Koul made this observation while setting aside a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court order rejecting bail plea of two persons under the UAPA.According to section 43D (2)(b) of the UAPA, if the police agency is not able to complete investigation of a case within a period of 90 days, then the detention could be extended by the court for a further period of 180 days provided that the court is satisfied with the report of the public prosecutor. The report should indicate the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of 90 days.Showkat Ahmad Sofi and Nayeem Ahmad Khan were arrested in connection with a case under section 120-B RPC (punishment of criminal conspiracy), 17 (punishment for raising funds for terrorist act), 18 (punishment for conspiracy), 38 (offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation), 39 (offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation) and 40 (offence of raising fund for a terrorist organisation) under the UAPA.Also read: Father Stan, UAPA and the Performative Solidarity of PoliticiansThe counsel for the appellants had submitted before the court that the accused will have a right to bail if the police agency cannot complete the investigation of the case within a period of 90 days. There was also no formal request from the public prosecutor to extend the period of detention.Despite that, the NIA court extended their detention beyond the period of 90 days in terms of orders dated February 28, March 7, March 27 and April 10, 2019, the report said.According to Greater Kashmir, they argued that the NIA court passed the orders based on the applications of the investigating officer. However, there was no report of the public prosecutor indicating progress of the investigation and specific reasons for detention of the accused beyond a period of 90 days, as required by law. Therefore, advocate Shafqat Nazir, on behalf of the appellants, pleaded that they were entitled to default bail.Therefore, while hearing the arguments, the J&K&L court, citing UAPA, said: “The provisions of section 43D(2)(b) envisage that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within a period of 90 days, the public prosecutor is required to approach the court with a report in which he should give the progress of investigation and specific reasons for detention of the accused beyond the period of 90 days. And if the court is satisfied with the report of the public prosecutor, it may extend the period of 90 days up to 180”.Also read: It’s Time for the Government To Redeem Itself and Repeal the UAPAHowever, in the present case, the NIA court has “misdirected itself while passing impugned order”, the J&K&L court said. It further said that as per the Supreme Court, a public prosecutor’s report is important so as not to leave a detenu in the hands of the investigating officer.Therefore, the J&K&L court set aside the order dated May 25, 2019, passed by the NIA court, Srinagar. The appellants were held entitled to bail and were asked to furnish personal bonds in the amount of Rs 1 lakh each with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the presiding officer.