Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramdass Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 13 October, 2021
CRM-M No.20398 of 2021 ...1...
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.20398 of 2021
Date of Decision: 13-10-2021.
Ramdass Singh & Others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
(Heard through Video-Conferencing)
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present: Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Ms. Samina Dhir, Deputy Advocate
General, Punjab.
* ** *
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
By way of the instant petition, the petitioners claim default bail, as
provided under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C and Section 43-D of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, "the UAP Act"), in the criminal
case registered at Police Station Sudhar, District Ludhiana, vide FIR No.94
dated 29.12.2020 under Sections 124-A, 153-A, 120-B IPC as well as Sections
10, 16, 18 of the UAP Act and Sections 3, 4, 5, 9 of the Official Secrets Act.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the allegations, as levelled in the
subject FIR, are that SI/SHO Jasvir Singh received a secret information
regarding the petitioners having been indulging in the unlawful activities in
order to create chaos in the State and bringing weapons from across the border
in an illegal manner and also sending sensitive information as well as the
1 of 4
CRM-M No.20398 of 2021 ...2...
photographs of Halwara Airbase to anti-national elements and thereby, posing
threat to the security, unity and integrity of the Country. During the
investigation, the petitioners were arrested on 30.12.2020. Challan was
presented in the Court on 24.03.2021, i.e within the stipulated period of 90
days but the requisite sanction of the competent Government was not annexed
therewith. The petitioners moved an application before the Court below
(Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana) under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C read with
Section 43-D of the UAP Act, for seeking default bail on the ground that the
Challan, so presented in the Court, was incomplete on account of non-
submission of the said sanction therewith and vide the order dated 20.04.2021
(Annexure P-2), the said application was dismissed.
3. Reply, as filed on behalf of the respondent-State, is already
available on the file and the same is taken on the record.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned
State counsel in the present petition and have also perused the file thoroughly.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Challan
has been presented in the Court without the requisite sanction from the
competent authority qua the prosecution of the petitioners under the said
provisions of the UAP Act, and thus, the same is incomplete and the petitioners
are entitled to the default bail on this score, as envisaged under Section 167(2)
Cr.P.C read with Section 43-D of UAP Act. To buttress his contention, he has
placed reliance upon the observations as made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Fakhrey Alam vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.319 of
2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6181/2020) Decided on 15.03.2021.
2 of 4
CRM-M No.20398 of 2021 ...3...
6. Per-contra, learned State counsel has argued that the Challan was
presented in the Court within the stipulated period of 90 days from the date of
the arrest of the petitioners, on completion of the investigation and the non-
submission of the requisite sanction along-with the same, does not render it
incomplete.
7. However, it is worth-while to mention here that the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short "the NIA Act"), has been enacted
with the object of constituting an investigation agency at the national level to
investigate and prosecute the offences affecting the sovereignty, security and
integrity of India. As discussed earlier, besides the offences under the Indian
Penal Code and the Official Secrets Act, the offences under the UAP Act are
also involved in the subject FIR. Section 2(g) of the NIA Act defines
"Scheduled Offence" as the offences specified in the Schedule and in the
Schedule appended to the said Act, the UAP Act finds mention at Sr. No.2
meaning thereby that the investigation as well as the prosecution of the
offences under the UAP Act, are to be governed by the NIA Act.
8. It is again pertinent to mention here that Section 21(1), (2) and (4)
of the NIA Act read as under:-
21. Appeals:- "(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 of 4
CRM-M No.20398 of 2021 ...4...
"(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."
9. From the above-discussed provisions, it becomes quite explicit
that an appeal shall lie against the order Annexure P-2 whereby the application
moved by the petitioners for claiming default bail, has been dismissed by the
Court below and such appeal is to be heard by a Bench of two judges, i.e the
Division Bench of this Court. However, the petitioners, instead of preferring
an appeal against order Annexure P-2, have moved the present Criminal
Miscellaneous Application (Main) to seek the relief of default bail and the
same is not maintainable in the present form before the Single Bench.
10. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the instant
petition deserves dismissal. Resultantly, the same stands dismissed
accordingly.
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
JUDGE
13th October, 2021.
seema
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
Whether Reportable? Yes
4 of 4
