Bail order affirmed by consent without merit adjudication upon evidence of consistent trial cooperation.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) filed a statutory appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act, 2008, challenging an order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the Special Judge (NIA), Manipur.

The impugned order granted bail to the Respondent, who is Accused No. 7 (A-7) in Special Trial (NIA) Case No. 3 of 2025, which involves offenses investigated by the NIA.

The Respondent contended that he has complied with all bail conditions for over two years and has regularly appeared before the trial court.

The NIA noted that the trial has since commenced and prosecution witnesses are currently being examined.

1. Whether the bail granted to the Respondent by the Special NIA Court should be set aside or maintained, given the Respondent's conduct during the pendency of the appeal and the commencement of the trial.

Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, which governs statutory appeals against orders granting or refusing bail by a Special Court.

Principle of judicial economy and consent-based disposal, where the appellate court refrains from a merit-based "legal drill" if the parties agree to maintain the status quo based on the conduct of the accused and the stage of the trial.

The court observed that the Respondent had been enlarged on bail for nearly 28 months without any evidence of non-compliance or failure to appear in court.

During the hearing, the NIA’s counsel conceded that the Respondent was cooperating with the smooth conduct of the trial and agreed that the Respondent could remain on bail provided such cooperation continued.

Because of this fair submission and the fact that the trial was already underway, the court determined it was unnecessary to evaluate the merits of the original bail order.

The court balanced the NIA's interests by explicitly reserving its right to seek cancellation of bail if circumstances changed and by leaving the legal questions raised in the appeal open for future adjudication in other matters.

The court held that: (a) all legal questions raised by the NIA are left open for future cases; (b) the NIA retains the right to seek cancellation of bail upon a change in circumstances; and (c) the Special NIA Court must proceed with the trial on its own merits, unaffected by the observations in this consent order.

No costs were awarded.