JUDGMENT :

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)

CRM-32190-2023

1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 139 days in preferring the appeal against the order dated 13.02.2023 vide which his bail application was rejected.

Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the applicant is in custody as an undertrial, was not aware about the period of limitation. His family members had later approached the counsel and therefore, the delay has occurred in filing the appeal.

Issue notice in the application to the non-applicant/respondent.

At the asking of the Court, Mr. H.S.Sullar Sr.DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

Heard.

The appeal against an order rejecting the application for bail is provided under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. The period of limitation which is prescribed therein is 30 days which can be condoned up to 90 days with sufficient cause. It has been held by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Faizal Hasamali Mirza versus State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 SCC (online) Bom 1936, that the period of 30 days prescribed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 would be directory in nature as the right to appeal is one of the essential components of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty. It has been held that in case the delay is not condoned then it would deprive the undertrial the right of appeal which is provided by the Statute which impinges on the life and liberty of the under trial as enshrined in the Constitution of India. It was held as under: -

'(i) that the Appellate Courts have the power to condone delay beyond the 90 days period, despite the language of the 2nd proviso to Section 21(5) of the NIA Act and that this can be done by virtue of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicability of which is not excluded under the provisions of the NIA Act. Thus, an application seeking to condone delay beyond 90 days in filing an appeal against the judgment, sentence, order, not being an interlocutory order, passed by a Special Court is maintainable, on sufficient cause being shown;

(ii) that the word 'shall' in the 2nd proviso to subsection (5) of Section 21, be read down, to read as 'may', and hence, directory in nature.'

In the instant case, the applicant/appellant is in custody as an under trial. The delay appears to be unintentional and not deliberate. It would, therefore, be in the interest of justice, if the appeal is heard and decided on merits. Consequently, the application is allowed and delay of 139 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

CRA-D-910-2023

The appellant has challenged the order dated 13.02.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran whereby his bail application in FIR No.142 dated 07.09.2022, registered under Sections 387, 120-B IPC, Section 25 (6), 25 (7) (i) of Arms Act, Sections 4 and 5 of Explosive Act, Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18-B, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [for short,' UAPA'], at Police Station Sirhali District, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant who has been arraigned as an accused on the allegations that he along with co-accused are members of a group headed by Lakhbir Singh alias Landa which is indulging in blackmailing and threatening innocent people and on the statement of co-accused Nachhatar Singh who stated that the appellant was also involved in collecting ransom money by issuing threats. The recovery which has been effected from the appellant was .32 bore pistol and 3 live cartridges. The appellant is physically challenged and his left arm is amputated. He has referred to the disability certificate as Annexure P-2.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submissions, has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 and Shoma Kanti