Karnataka High Court
Mr. Mohammed Zahooruddin vs State Of Karnataka on 5 January, 2021
Author: B.A.Patil
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6830 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
Mr. Mohammed Zahooruddin,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at No.10, 2nd Floor,
N.K. Nivas Apartment,
Behind Shoe Factory,
Govindpur,
Bengaluru - 560 045.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. N.S.Mamadapur, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka by
K.G. Halli Police Station,
Banaswadi Sub Division,
Bengaluru - 560 043.
Represented by
The Special Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
...Respondent
(By Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, Spl.P.P.)
-2-
This Criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.229/2020 of K.G.Halli Police Station, Bengaluru for
the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353,
333, 332, 427, 436 R/W 149 of IPC and Sec.4 of
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day
'through video conferencing', the Court made the
following:-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel Sri. N.S.Mamadapur for
petitioner-accused No.126 through video conferencing
and the Learned Special Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State.
2. Office has raised the office objection
contending that the present petition has been filed under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C. against rejection of bail
application of the petitioner by XLIX Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge and Spl. Court for NIA cases,
Bengaluru and how the petition is maintainable under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated
28.10.2020. It is further contended that as per Section
21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against
the order of rejecting or grant of bail an appeal lies to the
High Court.
3. I have carefully and cautiously gone through
Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008
(for short 'Act'), which it reads as under:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code,
an appeal shall lie from any judgment, sentence or
order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special
Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.
(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be heard
by a bench of two Judges of the High Court and shall,
as far as possible, be disposed of within a period of
three months from the date of admission of the
appeal.
(3) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall
lie to any court from any judgment, sentence or order
including an interlocutory order of a Special Court.
(4) 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.
(5) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred
within a period of thirty days from the date of the
judgment, sentence or order appealed from:
Provided that the High Court may entertain an
appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty
days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient
cause for not preferring the appeal within the period
of thirty days:
Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained
after the expiry of period of ninety days.
4. On close reading of the Section 21(4) of the
Act, it is clear that an appeal lies against the order
passed by the Special Court granting or refusing the bail
and admittedly the present order under impugned is
passed by the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008
and in that light, an appeal lies.
5. In that light, registry is directed to permit the
learned counsel for petitioner to convert the present
Criminal Petition into Criminal Appeal. For statistical
purpose this Criminal Petition is disposed of.
6. The learned counsel for petitioner is also
directed to file second set, so as to place the file before the
Hon'ble Division Bench having the roster.
Sd/-
JUDGE
pgg
