Appeal Against Sessions Court Order Refusing Anticipatory Bail In NIA Case Would Lie Before Division Bench Of High Court: Jharkhand HC
The Jharkhand High Court has held that appeal against an order refusing anticipatory bail by the Session Court, would lie before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The Bench of Justice Rajesh Shankar held, “Looking to the gravity and seriousness of the offences under the Schedule of the Act, 2008, the legislature has made specific provision under section 21 of the said Act for filing of appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court to expedite the hearing of such cases. Thus, the word “Special Court” as mentioned in section 21 of the Act, 2008 has to be given purposive construction so that the purpose of the provision as intended by the legislature may be achieved. The intention of the legislature while putting the said section must have been that a Session Court dealing with any scheduled offence under the Act, 2008 even in absence of issuance of any notification either by the Central Government or by the State Government under Section 11 & 22 respectively, has to be considered as a Special Court for the purpose of Section 21 of the Act, 2008 and in such case an appeal against the judgment, sentence or order including an order refusing anticipatory bail by the Session Court, will lie before the Division Bench of the High Court.”
Advocate Prakhar Harit for the Petitioner while APP Pankaj Kumar Mishra appeared for the State.
The anticipatory bail application was filed in connection with a case under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The office objected to the maintainability of the bail application being a matter relating to the Scheduled Offence under the Act, 2008.
The main issue for the consideration of the Court was whether an anticipatory bail application was maintainable before the regular Bench of the High Court against the order passed by the Court of Sessions Judge rejecting the Petitioner’s anticipatory bail petition filed with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 which are the scheduled offences under the Act, 2008, or an appeal is maintainable before the Division Bench of the High Court in view of section 21(4) of the Act, 2008.
The Court referred to the Sections 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 21 and 22 of the Act, 2008. Reliance was also placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Bikramjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2020), in which the Apex Court held that all Scheduled Offences whether investigated by the National Investigation Agency or by the investigating agencies of the State Government, are to be tried exclusively by Special Courts set up under the Act, 2008 and in the absence of any designated court by notification issued either by the Central Government or the State Government, the fallback is upon the Court of Session alone.
The Court said, “Though, section 21 states about filing of appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court against any judgment, sentence or order passed by the Special Court, the same would also apply for any judgment, sentence or order passed by the Session Court hearing the matter relating to scheduled offences under the Act, 2008. The word “Special Court” as has been mentioned in section 21 will have an extended definition and the same will include Session Court exercising the power of Special Court while dealing with the matter relating to Scheduled Offences in absence of designated Special Court constituted by notification in the Official Gazette under section 11 or 22 of the Act, 2008.”
The Court also relied on the judgments in the cases of Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishna Lulla (2016 SC), Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. & Ors v. Eastern Metals & Ferro Alloys & Ors. (2011 SC) and X Vs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr (2023).
Accordingly, the Court observed that the anticipatory bail application was not maintainable before the regular court and, hence, dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Gulshan Kumar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocates Prakhar Harit and Divya.
Opposite Party/State: APP Pankaj Kumar Mishra.