Point of Law: Cancellation of bail for non compliance of conditions - One cannot seek to protect his liberty, except when he scrupulously abides by the conditions stipulated in the order for bail.

ORDER :

Jayachandran, J.

We directed the above Crl.M.C. to be posted for hearing today, based on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant (4th accused) in Crl.A.No.761/2021. While, the petitioner herein is the 2nd accused, the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.761/2021 is the 4th accused in Crime No.2827/2016 of Perumbavoor Police Station, which has been renumbered as Crime No.337/2020 of the Anti Terrorist Squad, Ernakulam, for offences under Sections 120B, 171, 419, 447, 450, 395 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, as also, under Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Both the petitioner herein and the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.761/2021 stand in the same footing, since the orders enlarging them on bail in the said crime were subsequently cancelled, for non-compliance of a condition stipulated in the respective bail orders.

2. During the course of hearing in Crl.A.No.761/2021, learned counsel for the appellant/A4 submitted that the petitioner in the above Crl.M.C was afforded with an interim order preventing arrest by a learned Single Judge of this Court. It is accordingly, that we have called for the records in the above Crl.M.C and specifically posted the same for hearing today.

3. When the above Crl.M.C and Crl.A.No.761/2021 were taken up for hearing today, learned counsel for the appellant/A4 in Crl.A.No.761/2021 submitted that the said Crl. Appeal is not pressed. In the result, the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, vide separate order.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Before considering the merits of the matter, this Court will examine whether the above Crl.M.C filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is maintainable before the learned Single Judge of the High Court, when the offences alleged include the one under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [herein after referred to as 'UA(P)A']. By virtue of the above criminal miscellaneous case, the petitioner/A2 seeks to quash Annexure-A4 order of the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, as per which, the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Section 21(2) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (herein after referred to as 'NIA Act') is not applicable in the given facts, since the order impugned is not one passed by the Special Court under the NIA Act; nor is this a case investigated by the National Investigation Agency.

7. According to the learned counsel, merely because, the offences alleged in the crime involves a scheduled offence as per Section 2(g) of the NIA Act, the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court as envisaged by the Code of Criminal Procedure, does not cease to exist. Instead, only when an order in terms of Section 6(4) of the NIA Act is passed by the Central Government, there will be an interdiction for the State Police to proceed with the investigation. In the instant case, no such orders have admittedly been passed under Section 6(4) and the case is still being investigated by the State Police. Therefore, the mandate of hearing by a Division Bench of the High Court under S.21(2) of the NIA Act will not govern the present facts. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to Section 43 of the UA(P)A to point out that the offences under the Act can be investigated by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Delhi Special Police Establishment; in the case of metropolitan areas, an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner of Police; in the case of National Investigation Agency, an officer not below the rank of Inspector and in any other case, by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thus, the National Investigation Agency is only one among the agencies competent to investigate an offence coming under the UA(P)A and unless such investigation is ordered in terms of Section 6(4) of the NIA Act, there is no