NIA Act | Appeal From Sessions Court Also Lies Before Division Bench: Uttarakhand HC Dismisses Haldwani Violence Accused Abdul Malik's Bail Plea
The Uttarakhand High Court on Monday dismissed the bail application of Abdul Malik, main accused in the Haldwani Violence case.
Dismissing the bail application on the ground of maintainability, the bench comprising Justice Ravindra Maithani observed that an appeal against the order of the Sessions Court (being empowered to act as a 'Special Court') refusing to grant bail could only be preferred before the Division Bench of the High Court under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (“NIA Act”).
According to the Uttarakhand Police, Abdul Malik is the mastermind of the violence that erupted in February this year when the State Government took action against the illegal occupation of the government land in the name of religion. The resultant violence took five lives, and almost 69 people were arrested in the Haldwani violence, including the mastermind Abdul Malik.
Applicant/Abdul Malik was booked under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1976 (“UAPA”). He sought bail in relation to these offences from the Sessions Court which however was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani. Following this, an appeal was preferred before the Regular Bench of the High Court.
Without going into the merit of the case, the Court examined the maintainability of the bail application against the order of the Sessions Courts.
Arguments
It was contended by the Applicant/Malik that the bail application could not be preferred before the Division Bench under Section 21 of the NIA Act because the order rejecting the bail was not passed by the 'Special Court' constituted under the NIA Act. According to the applicant, the appeal could be preferred before the Division bench only when the order rejecting the bail was passed by the Special Court and not the Sessions Court.
Per contra, it was contended by the State that the meaning of the word 'Special Court' should not be given literal interpretation but purposive interpretation so as to make such orders passed by the Sessions Court rejecting bail in Schedule Offence appealable before the Division bench under Section 21 of the NIA Act.
Court's Observation
Finding force in the submissions advanced by the State, the Court observed that since the cognizance of the offence was taken by the Sessions Court and the investigation was carried out by the State Police and not the Agency, therefore the order passed by the Sessions Court declining bail to the applicant would be appealable before the Division Bench under Section 21 of NIA Act.
The Court reasoned that “the Court of Session exercising jurisdiction of the Special Court under Section 22 Sub-section (3) of the NIA Act, can exercise all the powers that have been conferred on the Special Court under Chapter IV of the NIA Act.”
“Under Section 21 of the NIA Act, the appeals are filed against the orders of the Special Court. In view of the powers that have been conferred on the Court of Session for exercising the jurisdiction of the Special Court, this Court is of the view that the orders passed by the Court of Session under Section 22(3) shall also be appealable under Section 21 of the NIA Act.”, the Court added.
Reference was made to the Supreme Court's case of State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Inspector General, National Investigation Agency Vs. Mohd. Hussain Alias Saleem (2014), where the Court held that the interlocutory orders arising out of the offences affecting sovereignty and security in the State would not be excluded from the purview of Section 21 of the NIA Act.
Also, the Court referred to the case of Jaffar Sathiq Vs. State, where the Full bench of the Madras High Court held that an order passed by a Court of Session dismissing a bail application under Section 22 Sub-section (3) shall be appealable under Section 21 of the NIA Act.
“In the instant matter, bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani on 10.05.2024. This Court is of the view that the present bail application is not maintainable before this Court. Instead, an appeal would lie under Section 21 of the NIA Act before the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, instant bail application is not maintainable. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to the dismissed as not maintainable.”, the Court concluded.
Case Title: Abdul Malik Versus State of Uttarakhand, First Bail Application No.1382 of 2024
Click here to read/download the judgment