Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Therefore, this Court, being the Roster Bench, has heard the present appeal separately as the appeal has been de-tagged. It is pertinent to mention that though the Apex Court had permitted the Appellant to seek bail on the ground of parity, yet Mr. Mehmood Pracha, learned Counsel for the Appellant, has confined his arguments only to the question of delay. He states that the Appellant is eligible to be granted bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA solely on the ground of delay in trial. Pressing his interim bail application bearing CRL.M.B No. 2168/2024, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant is in judicial custody for over 5 years and that there has been no progress in trial since the rejection of his second bail application. It is submitted that the Appellant has been assigned the role of a conspirator but no material has been produced by the Respondent Agency against the Appellant in the chargesheet assigning him a special role.

7. Per Contra, Mr. Amit Prasad, learned SPP for the Respondent Agency, submits that given the Appellant herein is pressing the present appeal only on the ground of delay and has restricted his arguments. He is addressing arguments only on two aspects- firstly, that the interim bail application filed by the Appellant is not maintainable and secondly, that the bail cannot be granted under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA solely on the ground of delay.

8. With respect to the interim bail application filed by the Appellant, learned SPP for the Respondent Agency contended that any bail application pertaining to the offences under UAPA shall be filed before the Special Court and an appeal against the said Order of the Special Court is maintainable before the High Court. A perusal of the provisions shows that any application of bail, whether interim or regular, has to be initially filed in the Special Court as provided under Section 21 of the NIA Act. It is submitted that the instant interim bail application is filed directly in this Court and, therefore, the same is not maintainable. To substantiate this argument, the learned SPP has placed reliance on State of AP through Inspector General, NIA vs. Mohd. Hussain, (2014) 1 SCC 258. Assuming that the interim bail application is maintainable, the same is equally affected by Section 43D(5) of UAPA in the absence of any specific provision in the said statute.

15. In the present case, the Appellant filed his interim bail application before this Court without exhausting his rights before the Special Court, as evidently stated under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act. Given the procedural fallacy on part of the Appellant, this Court cannot entertain the interim bail application as only an appeal impugning the bail order of the Special Court is maintainable before the Division Bench of the High Court.