The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an appeal under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act, 2008 to be maintainable, the impugned order must be passed by the Special Court designated under the Act.

ORDER :

Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

This Appeal under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short ‘the Act, 2008’) has been preferred challenging the order dated 14th December, 2023 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, whereby the application preferred by the appellant under Section 439 of the CrPC for grant of bail has been rejected, as the appellant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.310/2023, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Raipur (ST No.206/23) for offence under Section 370 of the IPC read with Section 4, 5 & 7 of the Prevention of Immoral Trafficking Act.

2. Prosecution case is that upon receipt of information on 24.06.2023 the concerned police team raided Blue Moon Spa Centre situated at Raipur and found that owner of the spa – present appellant along with Ashok Sahu – Manager of the spa and Vivek Sahu – Assistant Manager and Director – Kunal Rathi in the garb of running a spa hired 6-7 girls and got them engaged in the prostitution forcefully. From the said spa, incriminating articles have also been recovered. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the accused persons have been arrested, however, Director - Kunal Rathi fled away from the spot.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that the earlier bail application filed under Section 439 of the CrPC for grant of bail has been rejected by 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in BA No.1740/2023 on 30th June, 2023 (Annexure-A/2). Thereafter the appellant had preferred the first bail application before this Court and this Court vide order dated 21.7.2023 passed in MCRC No.4768/2023 had rejected the application on merits. Thereafter, the appellant had preferred 2nd bail application before this Court viz. MCRC No.7296/2023 which was also rejected on 13.10.2023 and then, 3rd bail application has been moved on behalf of the appellant viz. MCRC No.8671/2023, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 8.12.2023.

4. Before dwelling on the issue on merits, this Court put specific query as to whether against the impugned order this Appeal would lie in view of the provision contained under Section 21 (4) of the Act, 2008, to which learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that the impugned order has not been passed by the Special Court designated under the Act, 2008, which is not disputed by learned State Counsel.

5. Under the Act, 2008, the Special Court has been defined under Section 2 (h) which reads thus:-

“Special Court” means a Court of Session designated as Special Court under section 11 or, as the case may be, under section 22.”

6. Section 6 of the Act, 2008 provides for investigation of Scheduled Offences whereas Section 10 provides for power of the State Government to investigate Scheduled Offences. Section 11 speaks about the power of Central Government to constitute the Special Court whereas Section 22 speaks about the power of the State Government to constitute the Special Court.

7. In the State of Chhattisgarh, vide notification dated 15.1.2021, for the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act, 2008 for the trial of Scheduled Offences, the following Courts were notified:-