A conflict of jurisdiction wrongly perceived between Special Courts established under different enactments has compelled the Applicants to approach this Court, for bail.

2. Heard Shri. J. P. D'Souza, the learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicants/ Accused and Shri. C. A. Ferreira, the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.

3. The applicants are involved in Crime No.16 of 2010 which includes offences punishable under three different enactments : Under Sections 380, 409 and 120(b), IPC; under Sections 7, 11 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act, for short) and under Sections 28, 29, 30, 31 and 59(2)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (N.D.P.S. Act, for short).

4. The applications before this Court came to be filed after the Special Court at Mapusa constituted under N.D.P.S. Act by Orders dated 25-3-2010 came to the conclusion that she had no jurisdiction to decide their applications for bail and this conclusion was essentially based on the wording of Section 4 of the P.c. Act which provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,2 of 1974, or any other law for the time being in force the offences specified in sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall be tried by the Special Judge only (appointed under the P.C. Act).

4-A. The applicants have not challenged the said Order of the learned Special Court at Mapusa, and the main contention urged on behalf of the applicants, is that they are entitled to bail because their subsequent remand by the Special Judge under the P.c. Act is illegal.

5. Some more facts are required to be stated to dispose off the present applications. The applicant Ramchandra was arrested on 173-2010 and the applicants Sandeep and Hussain were arrested on 18-3-2010. On the very day of their respective arrests, applications for bail were filed before the Special Court (N.D.P.S. Court), Mapusa. The applicant Ramchandra was remanded to further custody by the Special Judge under P.c. Act on 23-3-2010, and the applicants Sandeep and Hussain were also remanded by him to further custody on 25-32010. By Order dated 25-3-2010, the learned N.D.P.S. Court held that she had no jurisdiction to grant bail to the applicants.

6. It is now conceded by the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants as well as by the learned Public Prosecutor that the said Ramchandra has been further remanded to custody by the N.D.P.S. Court on 31-3-2010 and the said Sandeep and Hussain on 1-4-2010.

7. The first aspect which needs consideration is whether the applicants would be entitled to bail because of the remand given to them by the Special Judge under the P.C. Act which according to the applicants is illegal. Learned Public Prosecutor has tried to explain that at that stage offences under N.D.P.S. Act were not invoked. Be that as it may, it is now conceded by the learned Public Prosecutor that the N.D.P.S. Court's view that she had no jurisdiction to try offences under P.C. Act along with those under N.D.P.S. Act is incorrect. I will return to this concession a little later.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that even if the Orders dated 23rd and 25th March, 2010 of the learned Special Judge appointed under the P.C. Act are illegal, the applicants/accused would not be entitled to bail. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned Special Judge could have certainly remanded the applicants as they were also involved in offences punishable under the P.C. Act. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the N.D.P.S. Court may otherwise have jurisdiction for the purpose of grant of bail or try the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that in case the applicants are entitled to bail on account of the so-called illegal Order of remand passed by the Special Judge under the P.C. Act then it is proper that the applicants should approach the N.D.P.S. Court, for the grant of bail. However, Shri. D'Souza, the le