HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND HON’BLE JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITI ON No.429 OF 2026 Date: 22.01.2026 Between:

Gade Innaiah @ Gade Inna Reddy …. Petitioner/Accused No.1 and The State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, National Investigation Agency, Hyd.…Respondent/Complainant This Court passed the following

ORDER

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Heard Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Ramavaram Chandra Shekar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for National Investigation Agency.

2. This petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of BNSS, 2023 seeking interim bail to the petitioner for a period of two weeks on the ground that the mother of the petitioner died on 15.01.2026 and her 11^th day death ceremony is scheduled on 25.01.2026. In proof of the same, the petitioner has filed copy of death certificate of his mother issued by Sagaram Gram Panchayath, Zaffergadh Mandal, Jangaon District.

3. Initially this petition was listed before the learned Single Judge, who directed the Registry to post this matter before the appropriate Bench. Therefore, this matter is listed today before this Court.

4. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 152 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 13 and 39 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967.

5. It is apt to note that considering the death of the petitioner’s mother, on the application filed by the petitioner, vide order dated 16.01.2026, the learned trial Court/designated Court i.e., IV Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad granted emergency parole to the petitioner for a period of two days by imposing certain conditions. The petitioner instead of approaching the learned designated Court seeking interim bail, filed the present petition under Sections 480 and 483 of BNSS, 2023, before this Court.

6. It is also apt to note that Section 21 of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 (herein referred to as the Act, 2008) deals with the appeals, it is relevant and is extracted hereunder:

“Section 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 High Court against an order of the Special Court granting or refusing bail.

(5) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment, sentence or order appealed from:

Provided that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of thirty days:

Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of period of ninety days.”

7. Thus, as per Section 21 of the Act, 2008, if the trial Court grants or refuses bail, then appeal shall lie before the Bench of two Judges of the High Court. Whereas in the present case the petitioner filed the petition under Sections 480 and 483 of BNSS, 2023 seeking interim bail for a period of two weeks. Therefore, it is not an appeal under Section 21 of the Act, 2008. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner can approach either the designated Court or this court directly. Bail jurisdiction is concurrent. Therefore, the petitioner has the following two opt