Bail Application Not Maintainable, Instead Appeal Lies U/S 21 NIA Act Before Division Bench: Uttarakhand HC Dismisses Haldwani Violence Accused’s Plea
The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the bail application of Abdul Malik, accused in Haldwani violence on the ground that the same is not maintainable and instead an appeal lies under Section 21 of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act).
The accused had preferred an application seeking bail as he was in judicial custody for the aforesaid violence that occurred in February month this year.
A Single Bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani observed, “In the instant matter, bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani on 10.05.2024. This Court is of the view that the present bail application is not maintainable before this Court. Instead an appeal would lie under Section 21 of the NIA Act before the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, instant bail application is not maintainable. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to the dismissed as not maintainable.”
The Bench emphasised that the orders passed by the Sessions Court under Section 22(3) shall also be appealable under Section 21 of the NIA Act.
Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid appeared on behalf of the applicant/accused while AGA Manisha Rana Singh appeared on behalf of the respondent/State.
In this case, the applicant/accused Abdul Malik was in judicial custody in connection with the FIR under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 395, 323, 332, 341, 342, 353, 412, 427, 436, and 420B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, Sections 3/25, 4/25, 7/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 15 and 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1976 (UAPA).
Hence, he sought his release on bail before the High Court. As soon as the matter was taken up, the State counsel raised a question regarding the maintainability of the bail application. She submitted that the applicant seeks bail under UAPA and the bail rejection order was passed by the Sessions Judge, therefore, instead the applicant ought to have appealed the bail rejection order in view of Section 21 of NIA Act.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “In the instant matter, investigation is being done by the State Police, not by the Agency. Cognizance in such cases may be taken by the Sessions Court without the case having been committed to it. Section 16 of the NIA Act, makes provisions in this respect. There are other provisions with regard to the powers of the Special Court with respect of other offences (Section 14), Protection of witnesses (Section 17) and Trial by Special Court to have precedence (Section 19) and others.”
The Court elucidated that the Sessions Court exercising jurisdiction of the Special Court under Section 22 Sub-section (3) of the NIA Act, can exercise all the powers that have been conferred on the Special Court under Chapter IV of the NIA Act and trial in such matters relates to serious offences.
“Under Section 21 of the NIA Act, the appeals are filed against the orders of the Special Court. In view of the powers that have been conferred on the Court of Session for exercising the jurisdiction of the Special Court, this Court is of the view that the orders passed by the Court of Session under Section 22(3) shall also be appealable under Section 21 of the NIA Act”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the bail application as not maintainable.
Cause Title- Abdul Malik v. State of Uttarakhand
Appearance:
Applicant: Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid and Advocate Vikas Kumar Guglani.
Respondent: AGA Manisha Rana Singh
