New Delhi: The National Investigation Agency was on Friday asked by the Delhi High Court to file its response on a plea by two suspected Indian Mujahideen operatives, who are also accused in Pune blast, against extension of probe period from 90 to 180 days in a case registered by the agency.
A bench of justices V K Bhasin and V P Vaish directed the NIA to file its response by August 8 on the plea by Syed Maqbool and Imran Khan challenging the trial court order which allowed the agency`s plea for extension of the probe period in a case of their alleged involvement in hatching a conspiracy to carry out terror strikes in the country.
The two, who also accused in the August 2012 Pune blasts case, had contended that the order was a serious violation of their right to life.
They have said in their appeal that "the NIA court had erroneously and unjustifiably, without appreciating the law as prescribed under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act granted extension in period of investigation as well as their judicial custody."
The appeal said the period of 90 days after their arrest was to expire on May 29 but the NIA moved the plea for extension of probe period on May 23, which was allowed by the court.
It said the trial court has "without any specific reason, in a ritualistic manner without addressing the contentions raised and case laws cited by the counsel for the accused, through an unreasoned order and without application of mind allowed the application seeking 90 day extension...."
It said that UAPA law mandated senior prosecutor to necessarily file a report on probe agency`s plea for extension of probe period but in this case the report was prepared within minutes and there is not even a whisper about the need for further detention.
The NIA had on July 17 filed charge sheet against Imran and Syed and three others -- Mohammad Danish Ansari, Mohammad Aftab Alam and Obaid-Ur-Rehman -- under various penal provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and the IPC relating to conspiracy to commit certain offences against the state.