Facts
The appellant (Accused No. 1) is an accused in NIA Case No. RC02/2022/NIA-MP pending before the NIA Special Court-I, Manipur
Source reference: p. 2The appellant filed this statutory appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act, 2008, challenging an order dated 12.03.2025, which rejected his third bail application
Source reference: p. 2-3The final report in the case was filed on 08.02.2023, and cognizance was taken on 09.02.2023
Source reference: p. 3While the present appeal was pending, the NIA Special Court framed charges against the appellant on 01.07.2025
Source reference: p. 3Previous bail applications had been rejected on 18.03.2024 and 20.08.2024
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the framing of charges during the pendency of a bail appeal necessitates a fresh application for bail to address the "prima facie true" standard based on the charge sheet materials
Source reference: p. 3-42. Whether the High Court should adjudicate the merits of a previous bail rejection order when subsequent procedural developments (framing of charges) have occurred
Source reference: p. 4Law Applied
The court primarily applied Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, which governs statutory appeals against orders of a Special Court
Source reference: p. 2It also referenced the procedural transition from the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), specifically regarding the final report under Section 173
Source reference: p. 3The court considered the evidentiary standard required for bail in NIA cases, noting that post-charge framing, an accused must satisfy the court that there are no reasonable grounds for believing the accusation is prima facie true
Source reference: p. 3-4Reasoning
The High Court did not conduct a merit-based review of the impugned order because of a consensus reached between the parties
Source reference: p. 4The Respondent (NIA) argued that the framing of charges on 01.07.2025 altered the legal landscape, requiring the appellant to meet the arduous task of disproving the "prima facie true" nature of the accusations based on the materials presented with the charge sheet
Source reference: p. 3-4Recognizing this procedural shift, the parties agreed that the appellant would file a fourth bail application before the Special Court
Source reference: p. 4The High Court observed that by allowing a fresh application, the Special Court could consider the prayer for bail in the context of the currently framed charges and the full report under Section 173
Source reference: p. 4-5The Court emphasized that this approach avoids a redundant "legal drill" regarding a past order that did not account for the current stage of the trial
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The Court disposed of the appeal through a consent order without setting aside or sustaining the impugned order
The Court issued the following directions: (i) the appellant is permitted to file a fourth bail application by 07.04.2026; (ii) the NIA shall file objections by 15.04.2026; and (iii) the NIA Special Court-I, Manipur, must dispose of the application on its own merits and in accordance with law by 29.04.2026
Source reference: p. 5The Court clarified that all legal points remain open for both sides and any party aggrieved by the new order may prefer a fresh statutory appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act
Source reference: p. 5-6Original Court PDF
Chingakham BasantavsNational Investigation Agency of Home Affairs
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in