After Co-Accused Get 5- and 6-Year Terms, Delhi HC Lets NIA Accused Renew Bail Plea

The appellant, A-12 in the trial, appealed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the Trial Court’s dismissal of his regular-bail application.

He argued that the record did not establish his guilt and that he needed bail to prepare for trial; he had been in custody for more than four years.

He also relied on the fact that four co-accused had pleaded guilty and received sentences of five or six years’ imprisonment.

The NIA opposed bail, relying on the dismissal of co-accused A-13’s bail appeal and the Supreme Court’s subsequent order directing an expedited trial without granting bail.

Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 provides the statutory basis for the appeal against the Trial Court’s bail order.

The Court considered its coordinate Bench’s decision in Md. Heydaitullah v. National Investigation Agency, which had dismissed A-13’s bail appeal; the Supreme Court later declined to grant bail but directed the Special Court to examine vital and protracted witnesses within six months and conclude the trial within one year.

The judgment does not set out or apply a broader bail test; it leaves the merits of any fresh bail application open for consideration by the Trial Court.

The Court considered A-12’s role, as reflected in the charge-sheet, to be indistinguishable from A-13’s role, and therefore declined to grant bail in light of the prior decision concerning A-13.

However, the guilty pleas and resulting five- and six-year sentences of other co-accused could provide a basis for a renewed bail application before the Trial Court. The Court left that issue for the Trial Court to consider afresh and expressed no opinion on the merits.

The Court clarified that observations in the impugned order would not affect fresh consideration and that it had expressed no opinion on the merits.