Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pangi Naganna, vs The State Of A.P. on 6 May, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2180 OF 2022
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed to enlarge the petitioner on
bail.
2. The petitioner is A-1 in S.C.No.174 of 2021 on the file of
learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Spl Judge for the trial
of NIA Act Cases, Vijayawada.
3. A case under Sections 120-B, 121, 121-A, 143, 144,
124(A) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short „IPC‟), Sections 10, 13 and 18 of Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short „UA (P) Act‟), Section 8(1)(2) of
APPS Act and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 was registered
against the petitioner along with other accused in the above
crime.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents.
5. The petitioner has filed criminal petition for grant of bail
before the trial Court. The said petition filed in Crl.M.P.No.897
of 2021 was dismissed by the impugned order. In fact, earlier
petition filed in Crl.M.P.No.313 of 2021 for grant of bail was
dismissed by the trial Court. Thereafter, he has filed another
petition for grant of bail and the same was also dismissed by the
impugned order.
6. Therefore, challenging the said order, the petitioner has
filed the present criminal petition before this Court seeking bail.
7. At the time of hearing, learned Assistant Solicitor General
has taken objection regarding maintainability of this criminal
petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the
petitioner. He would submit that as the crime was registered
against the petitioner under UA(P) Act, the investigation was
taken up by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). Therefore,
he would submit that when a petition for grant of bail was
dismissed, as per Section 21(4) of the NIA Act, only appeal lies
against the order granting or refusing bail to the Division Bench
of the High Court. Therefore, he would submit that the
petitioner has to prefer an appeal against the said order
impugned under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act and this petition is
not maintainable.
8. This Court finds considerable force in the said contention
of the learned Assistant Solicitor General. Section 21(4) of the
NIA Act, reads as follows:
"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".
9. Admittedly, the impugned order refusing to grant bail was
passed by the Special Court constituted under NIA Act.
Therefore, in view of Section 21(4) of the NIA Act, only appeal
lies against the said order.
10. As per Section 21(2) of NIA Act, every appeal shall be
heard by a Bench of two Judges of High Court. Therefore, the
appeal lies to the High Court before a Division Bench.
11. In fact, the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of
Andhra Pradesh had an occasion to deal with legal position in
this regard. The Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of A.P,
in the case of NIA vs. Mohmed Anwar Shaik and another in
Crl. A.No.824 of 2012 has dealt with this issue. The Division
Bench clearly held in the said Judgment while interpreting
Section 21(4) of the NIA Act that only appeal lies to the High
Court against an order refusing or granting bail and the same
has to be heard by a Division Bench.
12. Even the Apex Court also in the case of State of A.P
through I.G. National Investigation Agency vs. Md. Hussain
@ Saleem in Crl.M.P.Nos.17570 & 17571 of 2013 also held that
only an appeal lies against an order refusing or granting bail
passed by a Special Court constituted under NIA Act. Therefore,
the objection raised by the learned Assistant Solicitor General is
sustainable under law. Therefore, the criminal petition is not
maintainable under law.
13. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed as not
maintainable. However, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an
appeal against the impugned order in terms of Section 21(4) of
the NIA Act to the High Court. As ninety days period is
prescribed for preferring the said appeal and as the petitioner
has erroneously filed a petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C
before this Court, in case the petitioner prefers an appeal to the
High Court in terms of Section 21(4) of the NIA Act, the time
spent by the petitioner by way of filing the petition under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C before this Court shall be excluded from
consideration while computing the period of limitation.
_____________________________________________
JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date : 06.05.2022
KA
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2180 OF 2022
Date : 06.05.2022
KA
