Designated forum for bail under special statute bars High Court's ordinary Section 439 jurisdiction in TADA matters.

Where a special statute creates a designated forum for bail, the High Court cannot invoke its ordinary jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to entertain bail in that class of cases. The bail order was therefore without jurisdiction and unsustainable. The accused was required to seek bail before the Designated Court, which could consider the request in accordance with the governing principles. The appeal was allowed, the respondents were taken into custody, and liberty was preserved to apply afresh before the Designated Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a case arising under the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.

Analysis: The special statute created a designated forum for considering bail in such cases, and the High Court could not invoke its ordinary bail jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code. The bail order passed by the High Court, therefore, lacked jurisdiction. The proper course for the accused was to seek bail before the Designated Court, which could consider the matter in accordance with the principles already laid down by the Court.

Conclusion: The High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the bail application under Section 439 of the Code, and the order granting bail was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the respondents were directed to be taken into custody, and liberty was preserved to approach the Designated Court for bail afresh.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute provides a designated forum for bail, the ordinary bail jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be invoked to bypass that special jurisdiction.

---