The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, has ruled that an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is not maintainable against an order passed by a Special NIA Court refusing to discharge an accused. Justice Brij Raj Singh held that such orders must be challenged through a statutory appeal under Section 21(1) of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008.
Background
The applicants, Mohd. Faizan and two others, approached the High Court seeking to set aside an order dated July 1, 2025, passed by the Special Judge NIA/Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow. The Special Court had refused to discharge the applicants in Sessions Case No. 2414 of 2023, arising from Case Crime No. 342 of 2022. The charges included Sections 121-A (conspiring to commit offences against the State), 153-A (promoting enmity), and 295-A (deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings) of the IPC.
The applicants also challenged the cognizance order dated December 22, 2022, and sought the quashing of the entire proceedings.
Preliminary Objection by the State
Learned AGA Sri Shiv Nath Tilhari raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Section 482 petition. He argued that Section 21(1) of the NIA Act, 2008, mandates that “an appeal shall lie from any judgement, sentence or order not being an interlocutory order of a Special Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.”
The State relied on several precedents, including Sallahuddin Vs. State of U.P. (2022), Sumit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. (2024), and Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. (2025), to assert that an order refusing discharge or bail in a case governed by the NIA Act is appealable, thereby barring the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482.
Arguments of the Applicants
Counsel for the applicants, Sri Aftab Ahmad, contended that the NIA Act was not applicable because the investigation was conducted by the U.P. Police and not by the National Investigation Agency. He argued that under Sections 6 and 7 of the NIA Act, “twin conditions of investigation and prosecution” by the NIA must be met for the Act’s special procedures to apply.
It was further submitted that since the Central Government had not specifically directed the NIA to investigate under Section 6(4), and the case was being prosecuted by the State of U.P., the trial should be conducted before a regular court rather than the Special NIA Court. The applicants relied on the Patna High Court’s Full Bench decision in Bahadur Kora Vs. State of Bihar (2015) to argue that the Special Court lacks jurisdiction if the investigation is not conducted by the Agency.
Court’s Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework of the NIA Act, 2008. It noted that Section 121-A IPC is a “Scheduled Offence” as per the Act’s Schedule.
Regarding the applicability of the Act, the Court observed:
“The provisions of NIA Act, 2008 would be applicable in both cases either investigated by NIA or State Agency. For applicability of the Act, the requirement is that the offence should come in the category of scheduled offence.”
The Court highlighted Section 10 of the NIA Act, which preserves the power of the State Government to investigate and prosecute Scheduled Offences. It also noted that Section 22(2)(ii) defines “Agency” as the “Investigating Agency of the State Government” in certain contexts.
The Court dismissed the applicants’ contention regarding the non-applicability of the Act at this stage, stating:
“Since the order has been passed by the Special Judge, NIA Act, therefore, an appeal would lie under Section 21(1) of the Act, 2008, hence the argument of counsel for the applicant that the NIA Act, 2008 is not applicable in the present case, is not sustainable.”
The Bench emphasized that the “interlocutory order” exception in Section 21(1) does not apply to orders that substantially affect the rights of the accused, such as a refusal to discharge or a bail order, which are considered “intermediate” or “order(s) of a Special Court” amenable to appeal.
Decision
The High Court rejected the application, holding it to be not maintainable.
“In view of the aforesaid discussion, the application is rejected as not maintainable leaving it open to the applicant to seek remedy under Section 21(1) of the Act, 2008.”
Case Details:
- Case Name: Mohd. Faizan and 2 others Versus State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and another
- Case Number: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 734 of 2026
- Judge: Justice Brij Raj Singh
- Date: March 20, 2026
