The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Gulshan Kumar Singh in connection with offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
A single-judge bench of Justice Rajesh Shankar passed this order while hearing an anticipatory bail application filed by Gulshan Kumar Singh.
The anticipatory bail application has been filed apprehending arrest in connection with Satbarwa P.S Case at registered under section 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
The office has raised an objection regarding maintainability of the anticipatory bail application being a matter relating to Scheduled Offence under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
The counsel for the petitioner by referring to section 21 of the Act, 2008 submitted that the said section provides for filing of appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court against any judgment, sentence or order passed by a Special Court and since in the case, the impugned order has not been passed by a Special Court, rather by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge- III, Palamau at Daltonganj, if the office objection is accepted, the petitioner would be remediless.
The short question that falls for consideration of the court is as to whether an anticipatory bail application is maintainable before the regular Bench of High Court against the order passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Palamau at Daltonganj rejecting the petitioner’s anticipatory bail petition filed with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 which are the scheduled offences under the Act, 2008, or an appeal is maintainable before the Division Bench of the High Court in view of section 21(4) of the Act, 2008.
The Court noted that,
Thus, the Court of Session dealing with the scheduled offences under the Act, 2008 in absence of a Special Court constituted either by the Central Government or by the State Government under section 11 and 22 respectively, is treated as Special Court and it shall have all the powers to follow the procedure provided under Chapter-IV of the Act, 2008. Though, section 21 states about filing of appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court against any judgment, sentence or order passed by the Special Court, the same would also apply for any judgment, sentence or order passed by the Session Court hearing the matter relating to scheduled offences under the Act, 2008. The word “Special Court” as has been mentioned in section 21 will have an extended definition and the same will include Session Court exercising the power of Special Court while dealing with the matter relating to Scheduled Offences in absence of designated Special Court constituted by notification in the Official Gazette under section 11 or 22 of the Act, 2008.
The fundamental rule of interpretation of statute is that the court is not supposed to go beyond the statute unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. Purposive interpretation of any provision of a statute is given if literal interpretation of the same may not serve the purpose or may lead to absurdity. The intention of the legislature is 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 is designed to actualise.
The Court held that,
The literal interpretation of the word “Special Court” will not serve the purpose. Section 22(3) provides for the power and jurisdiction of the Special Court to be exercised by the Session Court of the Division in absence of any Special Court, whereas section 21 provides for filing of appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court against any judgement, sentence or order passed by a Special Court.
If the word “Special Court” is given literal meaning, then appeal against only those judgments and orders which are passed by the Special Courts shall 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 will 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 the Division Bench of the High Court in the matter of scheduled offences, will get frustrated.
Looking at the gravity and seriousness of the offences under the Schedule of the Act, 2008, the legislature has made specific provision under section 21 of the said 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 the Act, 2008 has to be given purposive construction so that the purpose of the provision as intended by the legislature may be achieved.
The intention of the legislature while putting the said section must have been that a Session Court dealing with any scheduled offence under the Act, 2008 even in absence of issuance of any notification either by the Central Government or by the State Government under Section 11 & 22 respectively, has to be considered as a Special Court for the purpose of Section 21 of the Act, 2008 and in such case an appeal against the judgment, sentence or order including an order refusing anticipatory bail by the Session Court, will lie before the Division Bench of the High Court.
“In the case in hand, the FIR has been lodged under section 4 & 5 of the Act, 1908 which comes under the scheduled offence of the Act, 2008 and the case is being investigated by the State Agency. The petitioner’s application filed for anticipatory bail has been heard by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Palamau at Daltonganj in absence of any notified Special Court in the Division and the same has been rejected vide impugned order dated 18.07.2024.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable before the regular court i.e, the Court, rather an appeal will lie under section 21(4) of the Act, 2008 before appropriate Division Bench of the Court”, the Court observed while dismissing the anticipatory bail application.