9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. 2. Jurisdiction of High Court in bail matters under the NIA Act and MCOC Act. 3. Applicability of Section 21(2) of the NIA Act to bail applications. Summary: 1. Interpretation of Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008: The primary issue raised was whether, in view of Section 21 of the NIA Act, 2008, bail matters should be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court rather than a Single Judge. The Court clarified that Section 21(2) mandates that every appeal under Section 21(1) must be heard by a bench of two Judges. This includes appeals against orders granting or refusing bail, which are considered interlocutory orders but are specifically made appealable under Section 21(4). The Court emphasized that the legislative intent was to ensure that such serious matters are heard by a Division Bench. 2. Jurisdiction of High Court in bail matters under the NIA Act and MCOC Act: The applicant, accused in a case involving multiple serious charges, argued that his bail application under Section 21(4) of the MCOC Act read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be maintainable before a Single Judge of the High Court. The Court rejected this argument, referencing previous judgments (Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon v. State of Gujarat, State of Punjab v. Kewal Singh, and State of Gujarat v. Salimbhai) which held that High Courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain bail applications under Section 439 of the Code when special statutes like TADA, POTA, and now the NIA Act, are applicable. The Court reiterated that bail applications must be made before the Special Court, and appeals against such orders must be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court. 3. Applicability of Section 21(2) of the NIA Act to bail applications: The Court clarified that Section 21(2) of the NIA Act applies to all appeals under Section 21(1), including those against orders granting or refusing bail. This interpretation ensures that such appeals are heard by a bench of two Judges, reflecting the seriousness of the offences under the NIA Act. The Court dismissed the applicant's contention that the order granting or refusing bail should not be included under Section 21(1) and thus not subject to the requirement of being heard by a Division Bench. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the Criminal Misc. Petitions, clarifying that: (a) Appeals from orders of the Special Court under the NIA Act, refusing or granting bail, must be heard by a bench of two Judges of the High Court. (b) Applications for bail in cases involving offences under the MCOC Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act must be made before the Special Court under the NIA Act, and not before the High Court under Section 439 or Section 482 of the Code. (c) Original applications for bail under the NIA Act must be made before the Special Court, with appeals against such orders lying only to a bench of two Judges of the High Court. The Court directed the Registry to send a copy of this order to the Andhra Pradesh and Bombay High Courts forthwith.
|
