This batch of criminal appeals is filed under Section-21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short).

2. All the appellants figured as accused in various cases registered by different police stations. The common feature in all such cases is that along with the offences punishable under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), certain offences punishable under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the U.A.P. Act for short) were also alleged. Though the investigation into those cases was undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.), and cognizance of the offences was taken by the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrates, the cases have been transferred or sent to the Courts of Sessions at the respective places, on the basis of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Aasif P.K. Versus The State of Bihar, 2015(1) P.L.J.R. 1017.

3. It was held in Aasif’s case that the U.A.P. Act is one of the enactments listed in the Schedule to N.I.A. Act and, in that view of the matter, wherever an allegation referable to the provisions of U.A.P. Act is made against an accused, the procedure prescribed under the N.I.A. Act must be followed. It was also held that even if the cognizance of offences was taken in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the investigation was undertaken by the State Investigating Agencies, and not by the National Investigation Agency (N.I.A. for short), the trial of such offences shall be conducted by the Court of Sessions, as provided for under Sub-Section (3) of Section 22 of the Act, even if no Special Court is constituted by the State under Sub-Section-(1) thereof.

4. The appellants herein filed applications for bail before the concerned Courts of Sessions. On dismissal of the applications, they filed the appeals before this Court. Quite large number of appeals of this nature have been filed in the recent past. In none of the cases, any steps were taken by the Central Government for entrustment of the investigation to the N.I.A., as provided under Section-6 of the Act, much less the investigation was entrusted to that agency, nor the investigation was transferred to State agency under Section 7 of the Act. The learned Public Prosecutors consistently pleaded that indiscriminate transfer or making over the cases to the Court of Sessions, simply because the allegations referable to provisions of U.A.P. Act are made, would bring about several extraordinary situations and many a time the accused persons would be subjected to stringent procedures under the Special Law. The Division Bench, before which such appeals came for admission (of which one of us was a member), felt that the matter needs to be examined in detail in view of the phenomenal increase in number of appeals being filed under Section-21(4) of the Act. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Full Bench.

5. The views expressed by the learned counsel for the appellants in this batch of appeals are not uniform. Majority of the counsel submitted that forwarding of the cases to the Courts of Sessions only on the ground that the offences punishable under the Act are alleged, and subjecting the accused to the procedure under the Act, is contrary to law and would result in hardship to the appellants. They submit that it is only when the investigation of a case is entrusted to the N.I.A. that the occasion for a Special Court constituted under Section-11 or 22 of the Act or a Court of Sessions under Section-22 (3) of the Act would arise. According to them, the N.I.A. Act, being a Special Law, can be applied to the cases only when the steps contemplated under that Act are taken, and not otherwise. They further submit that the view taken by the Division Bench in Aasif’s case (supra) does not accord with the settled principles of law and the directions issued therein can b