Back
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Vimal Kumar Paswan @ Vimal Paswan S/o Badal Paswan – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2008) is directed against the order dated 31.05.2023 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 1072 of 2023 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad in connection with Barora P.S. Case No. 10 of 2022 registered for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)(a)/26/35 of the Arms Act and Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected.
2. The instant case has been listed under the heading ‘For Orders’ with the office note that the case is barred by limitation since the same has been filed after maximum statutory period of 90 days.
3. The reason for pointing out such defect is that the provision as contained under Section 21(5) of the Act, 2008 which provides the period of limitation to prefer an appeal if filed under Section 21(4) of the Act, 2008, as per which, the requirement to file an appeal is the maximum period of 90 days.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contested the said office note.
5. It requires to refer he
The court ruled that the 90-day limit for filing appeals under the National Investigation Agency Act is mandatory, and failure to comply renders the appeal not maintainable.
The judgment in Buhari @ Kichan Buhari's case is overruled, affirming that the limitation period under Section 21(5) of the NIA Act is mandatory and cannot be condoned beyond specified limits.
Appeals under NIA Act Section 21(5) filed beyond maximum 90 days are not maintainable; delay uncondonable as provision mandatory, excluding Limitation Act Section 5 application.
(1) Appeal – Limitation—Appellate Courts have power to condone delay beyond 90 days period, despite language of 2nd proviso to Section 21(5) of NIA Act, 2008.(2) NIA Act, as a whole, cannot said to b....
The court established that the NIA Act's strict timelines for appeals must be followed, and the right to bail is statutory, not fundamental, limiting the court's discretion in condoning delays.
An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking the NIA Act, 2008 is not maintainable, and orders granting or refusing bail are appealable to the High Court under....
(1) Orders granting or refusing to grant bail are of interlocutory nature.(2) Application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure invoking National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is not maint....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'interlocutory order' under Section 21 of the NIA Act, 2008 and its applicability to the order of framing charge.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
