Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently held that the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which is carrying on an investigation into any Scheduled Offence, can also investigate any other offence which any other accused may have committed provided such other offence is also an offence connected with the Scheduled Offence under investigation.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh declined to give a narrow and restricted meaning of Section 8 of the NIA Act.

"We must be alive to the statutory intent for an actual realisation of the statutory scheme. In that regard, it is noteworthy that the Act, especially Section 6 of the NIA Act, is offence-centric and not accused-centric. The Act revolves around effective investigation of Scheduled Offences. Similarly, the central concern of Section 8 of the NIA Act is defining the scope of offences that can be investigated by the NIA and on what basis and not who are the accused," the bench said.

Court explained while investigating the accused of a Scheduled Offence, any other accused could also be investigated on the strength of Section 8 provided the following condition precedents are applicable:

(i) the NIA is of the opinion that during an investigation, any other accused who is alleged to have committed an offence having a connection with the Scheduled Offence has also to be investigated. In other words, there is a connection between the Scheduled Offence under investigation and any other offence committed by any other accused;

(ii) a report by the NIA is submitted incorporating the aforesaid opinion to the Central Government;

(iii) the Central Government on consideration of such a report, in exercise of its suo motu powers under sub-section (5) of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the NIA Act directs the investigation to be carried out in respect of any other accused also; and

(iv) the said investigation of any other accused must be carried out jointly as far as practicable with the investigation of the accused already under progress owing to the connection between the Scheduled Offence and any other offence.

Court rejected a plea by Ankush Vipan Kapoor against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order of January 29, 2024, cancelling his bail in connection with a case related narco-terrorism.

The NIA claimed that the petitioner was a part of the narco-terror network of smuggling drugs into India, transporting from Gujarat to Punjab, storing the same and purifying in Amritsar and Ludhiana for further distribution to various parts of Punjab and the National Capital, New Delhi and its surrounding areas. It claimed the petitioner allegedly had received for purification 500 kgs of narcotic drugs of heroin from Sukhbir Singh alias Happy and his associates on the directions of Italy based wanted accused Simarjeet Singh Sandhu.

Kapoor also filed a writ petition challenging the action of the central government in issuance of orders wherein the investigation of FIRs which were primarily registered under the NDPS Act had been entrusted to NIA in exercise of powers under Section 6(5) and Section 8 of the NIA Act.

His counsel said that the absence of there being any connection between the offences alleged against the petitioner with the offences alleged against the accused by the Gujarat Police, the invocation of Section 8 of the NIA Act for passing of the impugned orders was illegal and arbitrary and in total violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The bench, however, said, "In our view, the investigation could also be of a person accused of an offence which has a connection with a Scheduled Offence which is being investigated on the basis of Section 8 of the NIA Act. Then, the Central Government may also direct any such offence also to be investigated on receipt of a report from the NIA as against any accused when it is already investigating a Scheduled Offence against a certain accused, as in the instant case provided that offence has a connection with the Scheduled Offence."

Also, it pointed out that the NIA has been conferred wide powers under Section 8 of the NIA Act to also investigate into any other offence committed by the accused in respect of whom a Scheduled Offence is being investigated provided the offence is connected with the Scheduled Offence under the Schedule to the NIA Act.

The bench also said while investigating the accused regarding Scheduled Offences, if the NIA submits a report about some other accused who may have also committed certain offences connected with the Scheduled Offences under investigation then, the Central Government on a consideration of such a report may exercise suo motu powers and direct the NIA to also investigate the other accused also provided the offences alleged against the other accused are offences, having a connection with the Scheduled Offence already under investigation.

"Thus, on this basis, NIA would be enabled to also carry out an investigation of any other accused who has committed an offence connected with the Scheduled Offence already being investigated. This would be in the realm of a joint investigation into Scheduled Offences which may have occurred in different parts of the country but having a connection with other offences also," the bench said.

The court emphasised, the expression “the accused” would have to be given an expansive and enlarged meaning in this context having regard to the object and purpose of Section 8 of the NIA Act and the context in which provision has to be interpreted.

In the case, the court held the NIA was justified in seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner by the High Court in respect of the offences alleged against him under the provisions of the NIA Act in the State of Punjab.

"This is because the said offences are now being investigated by the NIA and there is also transfer of the trial from the concerned Special Court in the State of Punjab to the Special Court in the State of Gujarat, to be tried along with Scheduled Offences under Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA as per Section 14 of the NIA Act," the bench said.

Case Title: Ankush Vipan Kapoor Vs National Investigation Agency