Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

These petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are by one who is arrayed among the accused persons in four different cases pending before a Special Court, called the "NIA Court" hereinafter, constituted under the provisions of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, for short, 'NIA Act'. The NIA Court granted him bail in all the cases on the conditions that he shall surrender his Passport and that he shall not leave India. He thereafter sought modification of those two conditions. That was refused by the NIA Court. He filed Crl. M.C. Nos. 1272, 1281, 1282, 1283 and 1284 of 2014, challenging that decision of the NIA Court. Those Criminal Miscellaneous Cases were dismissed as per the order dated 30.05.2014.

2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed applications in the different cases seeking variation of the bail conditions on the plea that the final report placed by the investigator does not inculpate him and has sought leave for further investigation in terms of Section 173(8). He therefore pleaded that he may be permitted to go to Dubai for a period of 15 days. The NIA Court dismissed those applications, also noticing that the prime accused is still outside India and that the petitioner's plea that he would lose his Visa thus stands found against him because his earlier plea as to non-utility of the Visa has already been found against him in the a fore noted earlier proceedings.

3. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid decision of the NIA Court by filing the captioned Criminal Miscellaneous Cases invoking Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The learned single Judge noted that, in view of the decision of this Court in Thadiyantevida Nazeer v. State of Kerala [2011(3) KLT 734] and the a fore noted order dated 30.05.2014 in Crl. M.C. No.1272 and connected cases, these matters have to be heard by the Division Bench. Hence, these matters are before us.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would lie and the view to the contrary in paragraph 7 of the judgment in Thadiyantevida Nazeer's case (supra) is per in curiam and does not lay down the correct legal proposition. He further argued that what is prohibited is only any appeal or revision, otherwise than by recourse to Section 21 of the NIA Act and therefore, invocation of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court as recognised and preserved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not, in any manner, statutorily regulated by the provisions of the NIA Act. On facts, it is pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that he needs to go abroad for 15 days and any stringent conditions, whatsoever, may be imposed on him to ensure his availability for trial. It is submitted that the said request is all the more permissible because the investigation has not been able to find any link to inculpate the petitioner and as of now, the investigating agency has sought for an opportunity for further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C.

5. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the NIA argued that the specific exclusion of other appellate and revisional remedies by the provisions of Section 21 of the NIA Act, which is a special statute, is a clear indication as to the legislative wisdom that no other mode of access to any superior court is permissible in accordance with law and that, therefore, Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be also invoked. To buttress that argument, he referred to State of A.P. v. Mohd. Hussain [(2014) 1 SCC 258], which categorically held that an offender falling within the terms of the NIA Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 cannot access the jurisdiction of the High Court in terms of Section 439 or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. On facts, it is pointed out that if the petitioner is permitted to leave India, he would have easy access to the other accused persons who are yet to be reached at, an