JUDGMENT :

C. Praveen Kumar, J.

1. Assailing the order dated 22.5.2019, passed in Crl. MP No. 741 of 2019 in RC No. 1/2019 of NIA/HYD, registered for the offences punishable under Section 307 IPC and under Section 3-A(1)(a) of the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982, wherein the appellant/accused was granted bail, the National Investigation Agency preferred the present appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.

2. Both the learned Counsel stated that they have no objection for hearing of this appeal by this Bench and disposal of the same at the admission stage.

3. Before appreciating the arguments advanced by the Counsel, it would be appropriate to refer to the facts in issue.

4. The allegations levelled against the respondent/accused in nutshell are that on 25.10.2018 when the then leader of the opposition party, was in the VIP Lounge of Visakhapatnam Airport, the respondent/accused, who was working as an Attender in a Restaurant attached to the Airport went there to serve Tea. It is said that the respondent/accused requested the leader of the opposition for a selfie with him, to which he obliged. Taking advantage of the same, the respondent is said to have attacked the assailant, with a knife used in cock fights. Immediately thereafter, the said person was overpowered and a case in Cr. No. 348 of 2018 came to be registered in the Airport P.S., Visakhapatnam. Having regard to the gravity of the offence, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Government, New Delhi issued an order under Section 6(5) read with Section 8 of the N.I.A Act. Pursuant to which, the above case came to be re-registered as RC No. 1/19/NIA/Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Section 307 IPC and under Section 3-A(1)(a) of the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982 and transferred to special Court. Considering the rival arguments advanced, the Court below granted bail to the petitioner.

5. The main ground, on which the learned Sessions Judge granted bail, was on a principle that accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further, relying upon the judgment of Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632, having regard to the fact that the weapon used was a knife which is used in cock fight; as the respondent/accused being not a pirate or a hijacker; and as he figured as A5 in the said case, granted bail to the petitioner.

6. The Counsel appearing for the appellant/N.I.A. would contend that the case on hand cannot be treated as a regular criminal case. According to him, the order does not satisfy the requirements of Section 6-A of the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982, which are mandatory.

7. On the other hand, Sri M. Jayakar the learned Counsel for the accused raised an objection as to the maintainability of appeal itself. Even otherwise he would contend that the Trial Court has categorically held that the accused is innocent of the offence and as such the same warrants no interference. He further submits that the respondent/accused is only a waiter in the restaurant and to say that the provisions of the Act would apply to him is farfetched.

8. The objection raised with regard to maintainability of the appeal is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in National Investigation Agency Chikoti Garden, Begumpet, Hyderabad v. Mohmed Anwar Shak and others, Crl. A No. 824 of 2012 decided on 21.12.2012, 2013 (1) ALD (Crl.) 821 (AP). In the said case, the High Court after referring to various authorities on the subject, categorically held that under Section 21(4) of the N.I.A. Act an appeal would lie against any order passed by the special Court including granting or rejecting the bail application.

9. Coming to the merits of the case, Section 6-A of the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982