Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Dec 19: The Single Bench (SB) of High Court dismissed the plea challenging rejection of bail by the Special Court designated under National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act by recording that the decision of NIA Court has to be heard by Division Bench (DB).
The petitioner-Mohammad Ayoub Dar has challenged the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge Kulgam as Special Court under NIA Act whereby bail application of Dar for commission of offences under ULA (P) Act was rejected.
The counsel appearing prosecution has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the instant petition on the ground that the impugned order under challenge is appealable in terms of Section 21 of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
The Single Bench presided by Justice Sanjay Dhar has dismissed the petition and recorded that the petitioner-Dar has an alternative efficacious remedy available to him as he has a statutory right to file an appeal against the impugned order before the High Court that is to be heard by a Bench of two Judges.
“The remedy available to the petitioner is not only efficacious but the same is effective as well. Therefore, on account of availability of alternative efficacious remedy, this Court would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction under CrPC to interfere with the impugned order. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is held to be not maintainable. The same is, accordingly, dismissed”, Justice Dhar concluded.
It was argued before the court that the investigation of the FIR in the instant case has been conducted by local police and not by National Investigation Agency, as such, the provisions of the NIA Act are not applicable to the case at hand as also the order impugned has been passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Kulgam, and not by a Special Court designated under the NIA Act, therefore, the remedy of appeal provided under the NIA Act is not available to the petitioner.
The Court turned down these arguments and said that the UT Government has power to designate one or more Courts of Session as Special Courts for trial of offences under any or all the enactments specified in the NIA Act. Admittedly, as on date of passing of the impugned order, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir had not designated any Special Court in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir.
“However, Sub-Section (3) of Section 22 of the NIA Act, takes care of a situation where the Special Court has not been designated by the Government. It provides that jurisdiction conferred by the NIA Act shall, until a Special Court is constituted by the Government, be exercised by the Court of Session of the division in which such offence has been committed.
Coming to the arguments that the investigation of FIR has been conducted by the local police and not by NIA, the Court said the Act; do not prohibit the investigation of the Scheduled offences which include the offences under ULA (P) Act, by Local Investigating Agencies.
“It only provides that when a Scheduled offence is investigated by a local investigating agency, the same has to be tried by a Special Court and in the absence of a Special Court, by the Sessions Court having jurisdiction in the area, meaning thereby that the Sessions Court will act as a Special Court in such matters where the offences involved are of the nature as mentioned in the Schedule to the NIA Act”, reads the judgment.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
