9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncerning or relating to bail (emphasis supplied). Herein, the impugned order, not being order granting or refusing the bail, obviously it would not fall under sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the N.I.A. Act. That for these reasons, contention of the respondents that, Writ Petition was not maintainable, is rejected. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not empower the Sessions Judge to stay the operation of his order of grant of bail. The provision which can be said to be the nearest to meet the situation is Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. However, in it's terms, it only empowers him, to direct any person who has been released on bail to be arrested and committed to the custody. No doubt, the High Court in exercise of its power ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1090/2021 in re-registered Crime No. RC-01/2021/NIA/MUM with National Investigation Agency for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 201, 286, 302, 364, 384, 386, 403, 419, 465, 471, 473 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. After which, the operation of the bail, order was stayed for 25 days on the following two grounds: (i) National Investigating Agency, was intending to assail the order in Appeal before the High Court. (ii) The Court is empowered to stay its, own order, of grant of bail, in terms of the provisions of Section 309(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Reliance was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to quash the impugned order. 7. Mr. Anil Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General vehemently opposed the petition and contended, that the writ petition against the impugned order was not maintainable, and at the most, the petitioner could have maintained an Appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 ( N.I.A. Act for short). He relied on Section 21(4) of the N.I.A. Act which reads as under: 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. 8. Mr. Singh's contention was that, all matters 'concerning' or relatable to 'bail', could be assailed only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be stated that, the order impugned, though said to be relatable to bail, as argued by Mr. Singh, however, in terms of provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 21, it is not an order of a Special Court, either 'granting' or 'refusing' bail. The sub-section (4) envisage two kind of orders; one 'granting' and another 'refusing' bail. It does not specify third kind of order i.e. 'orders concerning or relating to bail (emphasis supplied). Herein, the impugned order, not being order granting or refusing the bail, obviously it would not fall under sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the N.I.A. Act. That for these reasons, contention of the respondents that, Writ Petition was not maintainable, is rejected. 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
