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.

ORDER

S. Vaidyanathan, C.J. - The petitioner is arrayed as an Accused No.3 (A3) in connection with a Special NIA Case No.1 of 2022 (NIA Case No.RC-7/2022) registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 120B/121/121A/122 IPC read with Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and a Charge Sheet was filed vide Charge Sheet No.18/2022 dated 29.07.2022 under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 6 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908.

2. The petitioner had moved bail applications before the Special Judge (NIA) and the same was rejected on 22.09.2022, 09.03.2023 and 21.08.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a bail application before this Court, which was taken up as Bail No.48 of 2023 and the same was withdrawn on 28.09.2023 with liberty to file afresh application.

3. According to the petitioner, there are no materials to implicate the petitioner, who is said to be a member of the banned Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council (HNLC) and there is no order of detention under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It is submitted by the petitioner that for an offence falling under Section 120B IPC namely, criminal conspiracy, the maximum punishment that can be imposed as per the provision of the Act is either death or imprisonment for life and there is no iota of evidence to show that the petitioner had deliberately conspired with others to commit the offence of bomb blasting under Section 6 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, thereby the petitioner had abetted the offence.

4. It is further submitted by the petitioner that he is in judicial custody for one year, nine months and twenty-five days as on the date of filing this application on 13.12.2023 and that the prosecution has enlisted 64 witnesses to be examined, which shows that the trial will take numerous time and further incarceration of the petitioner in judicial custody will cause great prejudice and affect the petitioner to effectively prepare his defence for the fair trial.

5. It is also submitted that the Special Judge has failed to appreciate the plea of the petitioner that he has nothing to do with HNLC. Even though various averments have been raised in support of the bail application, we are concerned only with regard to the condonation of delay in entertaining the main appeal and according to the petitioner, there is a delay of 114 days in filing the appeal.

6. The Special Judge (NIA) has rejected the last bail application on 21.08.2023 and on receipt of the certified copy of the order on 13.09.2023, the Bail Application No.48 of 2023 was moved before this Court, which was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file afresh application. It was reiterated that the delay of 114 days will not cause any prejudice to anyone except the petitioner, who is under incarceration for nearly two years.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that though there is a limitation period prescribed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the period of 30 days with further 90 days to enable the Court to condone the delay in preferring the appeal, the outer limit prescribed under the said provision is not an absolute one, as the bail is the rule and jail is the exception. For the sake of convenience, Section 21 is extracted below:

'21. Appeals.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, an appeal shall lie from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.

(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a bench of two Judges of the High Court and shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of admission of the appeal.

(3) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any Court from any judgment, sentence or order including an interlocutory order of a Special Court.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of section 378 of the Code, an appeal shall lie to the