Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: nia in Bisheshwar Mishra & Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 27 October, 2016Matching Fragments
54. The reasoning behind the exception carved out is because those orders are concerning the liberty of the accused, as would appear from the interpretation given to in pari materia provisions of Section 21(1) and (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short „the NIA Act‟) by the Supreme Court in State of A.P. Vs. Mohd. Hussain alias Saleem, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 258.
55. Let us, now, take a glance at Section 21 of the NIA Act, which reads as under :
Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of period of ninety days."
(emphasis mine)
56. From a bare reading of Section 21 of the NIA Act vis-à-vis Section 14-A of the Act, it becomes transparent that clause (1) and (4) of the NIA Act are in pari materia newly inserted Section 14-A(1) and (2) of the Act.
57. The Supreme Court has interpreted clause (1) Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25276 of 2016 and (4) of NIA Act in State of A.P. Vs. Mohd. Hussain alias Saleem (supra), wherein the principal submission of the accused respondents was based on the premise that the order, granting or refusing bail, is an interlocutory order and that the order on a bail application is excluded from the coverage of Section 21(1) of the NIA Act, which provides for appeals to the High Court from any judgment, sentence or order of Special Court both on facts and on law. It was argued, on behalf of the respondents, accused that it is only those appeals, which are covered under Section 21(1) that are to be heard by two Judges of the High Court, as laid down under Section 21(1) of the NIA Act. The appeal against refusal of bail lies to the High Court under Section 21(4) and not under Section 21(1) and, therefore, it need not be heard by a Bench of two Judges. It was also argued, on behalf of the respondents accused, that the bail application, which the accused had filed before the Bombay High Court, was one under Section 124 of the Maharashtra Control of Crimes Act read with Section 439 of the Code and was fully maintainable before a Single Judge.
(emphasis mine)
59. After analyzing the provisions of Section 21 of the NIA Act, the Supreme Court held in paragraph Nos. 27.1, 27.2 and 27.3, as under:― "27.1. Firstly, an appeal from an order of the Special Court under NIA Act, refusing or granting bail shall lie only to a bench of two Judges of the High Court.