 Act (UAPA).webp)
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the extension of investigation and detention of six petitioners beyond the initial 90-day period in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
Justice Madhu Jain, in an order dated August 31, 2026, held that the Special Court had considered the Public Prosecutor’s report, the case diaries and the objections raised by the petitioners before extending the investigation period and consequential detention up to 180 days.
The case arose from FIR RC-07/2026/NIA/DLI, registered on March 13, 2026, at the NIA Police Station, New Delhi, under Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The FIR was registered after the Ministry of Home Affairs directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to investigate the matter. The petitioners were stated to be Ukrainian nationals holding Ukrainian passports and Indian tourist visas.
According to the FIR, information had been received regarding the alleged involvement of certain individuals in a drone attack on a civilian aircraft in Myanmar. The order records allegations that 14 Ukrainian nationals had entered India on tourist visas, travelled to Mizoram without the requisite Restricted Area Permit/Protected Area Permit and thereafter illegally entered Myanmar, where they were allegedly to conduct training relating to drone warfare, drone operations, assembly and jamming technology for Myanmar-based Ethnic Armed Groups.
The petitioners were arrested by the NIA on March 13, 2026, at Lucknow and Delhi airports and produced before the competent court the following day. They initially remained in police custody, which continued for a total of 24 days until April 6, 2026. They were thereafter remanded to judicial custody for 30 days, and the period of investigation and detention was subsequently extended on May 6 until June 4, 2026.
On June 3, 2026, the NIA moved an application under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA read with Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking extension of the investigation period and consequential detention beyond 90 days, up to 180 days. The petitioners opposed the request, arguing that the statutory requirements for continued detention had not been satisfied. On June 4, 2026, the Special Court allowed the NIA’s application and extended the period of investigation and consequential detention beyond 90 days and up to 180 days under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA read with Section 187 of the BNSS.
The High Court noted that Section 43-D(2)(b) requires the Special Court to consider both the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for continued detention.
"Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA undoubtedly requires the Court to be satisfied, on the basis of the report of the Public Prosecutor, regarding the progress of investigation and the specific reasons for detention of the accused beyond the period of 90 days. The two requirements are required to be considered by the Special Court before an extension is granted. However, the scope of examination by this Court is whether the statutory requirements were substantially complied with and whether the Special Court had applied its mind to the material placed before it."
The Court, however, found that the Special Judge had examined the Public Prosecutor’s report, the application, case diaries and the petitioners’ objections before recording satisfaction that further investigation was necessary.
The High Court also rejected the argument that the extension was based merely on repeated grounds from earlier remand applications. It noted that the Special Judge had recorded that fresh facts and evidence had emerged during the investigation.
The High Court held that the Special Court’s decision to grant the investigation and consequential detention extension up to the maximum permissible period of 180 days did not, by itself, render its June 4, 2026 order illegal. The High Court found no demonstrable perversity or violation of the statutory requirements warranting interference.
On the issue of default bail, the Court held that since the extension order had been passed before expiry of the initial 90-day period, the subsequent expiry of those 90 days did not by itself create an indefeasible right to default bail.
The Delhi High Court found no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the Special Court’s June 4, 2026 order extending the period of investigation and consequential detention beyond 90 days and up to 180 days. The Court held that no ground had been established for interfering with the order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
The Court also directed that any pending applications would stand disposed of and ordered that a copy of the order be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary information and compliance. The order was directed to be uploaded on the Court’s website forthwith.
Case Details
Case Title: Hurba Petro and Others v. Union of India and Others
Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 2408/2026
Judge: Justice Madhu Jain
Decision Date: August 31, 2026
