IMPORTANT POINT
Orders granting or refusing bail by Special court are interlocutory orders. Appeal lies to High Court. No appeal lies from any other interlocutory order.
Where NIA Act applies, original application for bail shall lie only before the Special Court, and appeal against orders therein shall lie only to a bench of two Judges of the High Court.

Headnote:(a) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Section 21(2) – Appeals in the High Court to be heard by Division Bench and not Single judge – This is mandatory provision. (Para 1)
       (b) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Sections 13(1) and 14(1) – Offence under schedule – Special courts have exclusive jurisdiction u/s 13(1) – Composite offence covered under any Act specified in the Schedule and some other act – Trial to be conducted before the Special Court in view of Section 14(1). (Para 12)
       (c) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Section 21(3) and (4) – Orders granting or refusing bail by Special court are interlocutory orders – Appeal lies to High Court – No appeal lies from any other interlocutory order. (Para 13, 14)
       AIR 1988 SC 922 – Relied upon
       (d) Interpretation of statute – A provision has to be read in its entirety – Sub-sections are to be read in relation to each other and not disjunctively – Provisions are also to be read in context of the statute. (Para 15)
       (e) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Section 21 – Appeal from an order of the Special Court refusing or granting bail shall lie only to a bench of two Judges of the High Court – Offences under the MCOC Act, 1999, as well as The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 are triable only by Special Court – Application for bail in such matters shall not lie before the High Court either under Section 439 or under Section 482 – Where NIA Act applies, original application for bail shall lie only before the Special Court, and appeal against orders therein shall lie only to a bench of two Judges of the High Court. (Para 21)
       AIR 1988 SC 922; 1990 (Supp) SCC 147; (2003) 8 SCC 50 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       These cases raise two issues:
       i) whether in view of section 21(2) NIA Act appeals before High Court has mandatorily to be heard by a Division Bench, and
       ii) whether section 21 applies to order of special court rejecting bail, and
       iii) whether bail petitions under MCOCA are to be heard under section 21 of the NIA Act?
       Finding of the Court:
       Application for bail by the accused in Crl. MPs Nos. 17570-71 of 2013 in SLPs (Crl.) Nos. 7375 and 9788 of 2012 lies before a Special Court.

JUDGMENT

H.L. Gokhale, J.

1. These Criminal Misc. Petitions have been filed by the applicant for impalement, and clarification of the common order passed by this Court on 2.8.2013 in (i) SLP (Crl.) No. 7375/2012 State of A.P. through I.G. National Investigating Agency v. Md. Hussain @ Saleem, and (ii) SLP (Crl.) No. 9788/2012 National Investigation Agency v. Ravi Dhiren Ghosh. SLP (Crl.) No. 7375/2012 arose from the judgment and order dated 7.9.2012 in CRLP No. 6562/2012 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. SLP (Crl.) No. 9788/2012 arose out of the order passed by the Bombay High Court on Criminal Bail Application No. 1063/2012. The relevant part of this order dated 2.8.2013 passed by this Court reads as follows:

The only issue raised in these petitions is that in view of the provisions of Section 21of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the matters in the High Court ought to have been heard by a Division Bench, and not by a Single Judge. The submission made by the learned Additional Solicitor General is based on the provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 21, which is a statutory requirement. That being so, the order passed by the High Courts deserve to be set aside, and the proceedings, namely, Crl. P. No. 6562/2012 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Criminal Bail Application No. 1063/2012 in the Bombay High Court, will have to be restored to the Division Bench of the respective High Courts. Ordered accordingly.

2. The applicant herein is accused No. 1 in Special (MCOC) CC No. 1/09 pending before the learned NIA and MCOC Court Mumbai. The said case arises out of a bomb blast in Malegaon that occurred on 29.9.2008. A charge-sheet has been filed on 20.1.2009 against the applicant and Ors. including 3 absconding accused, under Sections 302 /307 /326 /324 /427 /153A /120B of Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 3 ,4 ,5 and 6of Explosive Substance Act, 1908, Sections 3 ,5 and 25 of Indian Arms Act, 15 ,16 ,17 ,18 ,20 and 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), and 3(5) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999 (MCOC Act for short), before the Court of Special Judge (MCOCA) Greater Mumbai, Maharashtra. The National Investigation Agency has taken over the investigation of this case, by virtue of an order of the Central Government dated 1.4.2011 passed in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 6(5) of The National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act for short).

3. The applicant is in custody and has preferred an application for bail on 23.10.2012, before a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, bearing Criminal Bail Application No. 1679 of 2012, under the provisions of Section21(4) of the MCOC Act r/w Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code for short).

4. It so transpired that during the pendency of this bail application, this Court passed the above referred common order dated 2.8.2013 in SLP (Crl.) No. 7375/2012 and SLP (Crl.) No. 9788/2012. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing in the matter brought this order to the notice of the learned Single Judge hearing the said Criminal Bail Application, and submitted that in view of the said order dated 2.8.2013 passed by this Court, the said Criminal Bail Application is required to be placed before a Division Bench of the High Court. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted to the High Court that the aforesaid order of this Court has no application to the facts of the case of the applicant. The counsel for the applicant however further submitted that he shall seek necessary clarification with respect to the order passed by this Court. The learned Judge has, therefore, adjourned the hearing of the Criminal Bail Application. It is in these circumstances that the present Criminal Misc. Petitions have been filed seeking impleadment and also the following two prayers:

(a) allow this application by clarifying/declaring that provisions of Section 21(2) of Nat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(SC) 859

Cases Referred (2)