Jharkhand High Court: In the present case, the question arose before the Court was whether an anticipatory bail application was maintainable before the regular Bench of High Court against the order passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application for offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 was rejected. Rajesh Shankar, J., stated that looking to the gravity and seriousness of the offences under the Schedule of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (‘the NIA Act’), the legislature had made specific provision under section 21 of the NIA Act for filing of appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court to expedite the hearing of such cases. Thus, the word “Special Court” as mentioned in section 21 of NIA Act had to be given purposive construction, so that the purpose of the provision as intended by the legislature might be achieved.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court opined that the present anticipatory bail application was not maintainable before the regular court i.e., this Court, rather an appeal would lie under section 21(4) of the NIA Act, before appropriate Division Bench of this Court.
Background
In the present case, the objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the present anticipatory bail application as the case was registered under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, which were the Scheduled Offences under the NIA Act.
Petitioner submitted that the Section 21 of the NIA Act provided for filing of appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court against any judgment, sentence or order passed by a Special Court. Since, in the present case, the impugned order had not been passed by the Special Court, rather by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge- III, Palamau, Daltonganj (‘Additional Sessions Judge’), if the objection was accepted, the petitioner would be remediless.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court relied on Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 616, wherein it was held that all the Scheduled Offences whether investigated by the National Investigation Agency (‘NIA’) or by the investigating agencies of the State Government, were to be tried exclusively by Special Courts set up under the NIA Act. Further, in the absence of any designated court, the fallback was upon the Court of Session alone. Thus, the Court stated that the Court of Session dealing with the scheduled offences under the NIA Act, in absence of a Special Court constituted either by the Central Government or by the State Government, was treated as Special Court and it should have all the powers to follow the procedure provided under Chapter IV of the NIA Act.
The Court stated that the fundamental rule of interpretation of statute was that the Court was not supposed to go beyond the statute, unless it was absolutely necessary to do so. Purposive interpretation of any provision of a statute was given, if literal interpretation of the same might not serve the purpose or might lead to absurdity. The intention of the legislature was derived by considering the meaning of the words used in the statute, with a view to understand the purpose or object of the enactment, the mischief, and its corresponding remedy that the enactment was designed to actualise.
The Court stated that if the word “Special Court” under Section 21 of the NIA Act was given literal meaning, then appeal against only those judgments and orders which were passed by the Special Courts should lie before the Division Bench of the High Court and challenge to the judgments and orders passed by Session Courts even in the matter of Scheduled Offences would lie before the regular Bench of the High Court. Thus, the intention of the legislature in promulgating the law that the appeal should lie before to the Division Bench of the High Court in the matter of scheduled offences, will get frustrated.
The Court stated that looking to the gravity and seriousness of the offences under the Schedule of the NIA Act, the legislature had made specific provision under section 21 of the NIA Act for filing of appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court to expedite the hearing of such cases. Thus, the word “Special Court” as mentioned in section 21 of NIA Act had to be given purposive construction, so that the purpose of the provision as intended by the legislature might be achieved.
The Court noted that in the present case, the FIR was lodged under Section 4 and 5 of the NIA Act came under the scheduled offence and the case was being investigated by the State Agency. Thereafter, the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge in absence of any notified Special Court in the Division and the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 18-07-2024. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court opined that the present anticipatory bail application was not maintainable before the regular court i.e., this Court, rather an appeal would lie under section 21(4) of the NIA Act, before appropriate Division Bench of this Court.
[Gulshan Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 3035, decided on 21-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Prakhar Harit, Advocate; Divya, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P.