The Jharkhand High Court, presided over by Justice Rajesh Shankar, dismissed the anticipatory bail application of petitioner Gulshan Kumar Singh in connection with Satbarwa Police Station Case No. 33 of 2024, which involves offenses under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The court emphasized that such an application is not maintainable before a regular Bench of the High Court and should be filed as an appeal before the Division Bench in accordance with Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008.
Background of the Case:
The petitioner, Gulshan Kumar Singh, sought anticipatory bail to avoid arrest in a case registered under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, which is categorized as a “Scheduled Offence” under the NIA Act, 2008. The case was initially heard and the bail application rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Palamau at Daltonganj, in the absence of a designated Special Court.
Legal Issues Involved:
The key issue before the court was whether an anticipatory bail application is maintainable before a regular Bench of the High Court against an order passed by a Sessions Court in cases involving scheduled offenses under the NIA Act, 2008. The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Prakhar Harit and Ms. Divya, argued that since the order was passed by a Sessions Court and not a Special Court, the objection regarding the maintainability of the bail application was unfounded. They contended that if the court upheld the objection, the petitioner would be left without any remedy.
However, the opposing counsel for the State, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, Assistant Public Prosecutor, argued that the provisions of the NIA Act, specifically Section 21, mandate that any appeal against orders related to scheduled offenses must be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court, emphasizing the specialized procedure laid down by the NIA Act.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
Justice Rajesh Shankar, referring to various provisions of the NIA Act, 2008, particularly Sections 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 21, noted that the Act establishes a comprehensive legal framework for the investigation and prosecution of offenses affecting the sovereignty, security, and integrity of India. The court highlighted the following key observations:
– On the Role of Special Courts:
“All Scheduled Offences, whether investigated by the National Investigation Agency or the State Government’s investigative agencies, are to be tried exclusively by Special Courts set up under the NIA Act, 2008. In the absence of a designated Special Court by either the Central Government or the State Government, the Court of Session assumes this role,” the court noted, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Bikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 616.
– On Appeal Jurisdiction:
The court further observed, “Section 21 of the NIA Act, 2008, explicitly provides that an appeal from any judgment, sentence, or order of a Special Court, not being an interlocutory order, shall lie to the High Court and be heard by a bench of two judges.” It concluded that even when a Sessions Court exercises the powers of a Special Court in the absence of a notified Special Court, any appeals against its orders must be filed before the Division Bench of the High Court.
– On the Purpose of Legislation:
“The intention of the legislature while enacting the NIA Act, 2008, was to ensure that cases involving scheduled offenses are dealt with expeditiously and by specialized forums. Therefore, the term ‘Special Court’ should be given a purposive construction to include the Sessions Court exercising such powers, ensuring that appeals lie before the Division Bench of the High Court,” the court reasoned.
The court dismissed the anticipatory bail application as not maintainable before the regular court, directing that the petitioner could appeal under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act before the appropriate Division Bench. “The petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal and may use the certified copies of the FIR and the impugned order filed with the present application,” Justice Shankar concluded.
Case Details:
– Case Title: Gulshan Kumar Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand
– Case Number: A.B.A. No. 19142 of 2024
– Bench: Justice Rajesh Shankar
– Petitioner: Gulshan Kumar Singh, represented by Mr. Prakhar Harit and Ms. Divya.
– Opposite Party (State of Jharkhand): Represented by Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Assistant Public Prosecutor.
