Setting aside bail, respondent to surrender before Special Judge for Economic Offences within a week.

The Criminal Petition is allowed, setting aside the bail order granted by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge. The respondent must surrender before the Special Judge for Economic Offences within one week and apply for regular bail afresh, to be considered based on the bailability of the offences as per the Apex Court's judgment. The court clarified the jurisdiction of the Special Judge for Economic Offences and the implications of the Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014 on court designations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge to grant bail.
2. Validity of the bail order granted by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge.
3. Legal implications of the Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014 on the jurisdiction of the Special Judge for Economic Offences.
4. Interpretation of Sections 9A, 19, and 20 of the Central Excise Act and Sections 103 and 104 of the Customs Act regarding bailability of offences.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge to Grant Bail

Contentions of the Petitioner:
- The petitioner argued that the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the bail application after it was dismissed by the Special Judge for Trial of Economic Offences.
- The petitioner cited G.O. Rt. No. 734, Home (Courts-A) Department, dated 13-3-1981, and subsequent circulars and judicial pronouncements to support this contention.
- It was emphasized that the Special Judge for Economic Offences is the only competent authority to entertain bail applications for offences under the specified Central Acts.

Contentions of the Respondent:
- The respondent contended that the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge was right in granting bail under Section 439 of Cr. P.C., citing the Apex Court's judgment in Omprakash and Another v. Union of India and Another, which held that offences under the Customs Act are bailable.

Court's Analysis:
- The court examined Sections 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the Cr. P.C., which outline the jurisdiction and hierarchy of criminal courts.
- The court noted that the Special Judge for Economic Offences, designated as the VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, is part of the Metropolitan Sessions Division of Hyderabad, and thus, the Metropolitan Sessions Judge lacks jurisdiction over cases designated to the Special Judge.
- The court referred to the Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014, and clarified that the existing jurisdiction of the Special Judge for Economic Offences remains valid until new notifications are issued for the bifurcated states.

Issue 2: Validity of the Bail Order Granted by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge

Court's Conclusion:
- The court concluded that the Metropolitan Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to grant bail in this case, rendering the bail order dated 23-4-2014, in Crl. M.P. No. 1464 of 2014, unsustainable.
- The court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to stay the cancellation of bail for one week to allow the respondent to surrender before the Special Judge for Economic Offences and move for regular bail afresh.

Issue 3: Legal Implications of the Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014

Court's Observation:
- The court observed that the bifurcation of the state necessitates the re-designation of special courts for the newly formed states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.
- Until such re-designation, the existing jurisdiction of the Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad continues to hold for cases arising before the bifurcation.

Issue 4: Interpretation of Sections 9A, 19, and 20 of the Central Excise Act and Sections 103 and 104 of the Customs Act

Court's Reference:
- The court referred to the Apex Court's judgment in Omprakash and Another v. Union of India and Another, which held that offences under the Central Excise Act and the Customs Act are bailable.
- The court directed the Special Judge for Economic Offences to consider this interpretation while entertaining the fresh bail application of the respondent.

Conclusion:
The Criminal Petition is allowed, and the bail order granted by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge is set aside. The respondent is directed to surrender before the Special Judge for Economic Offences within one week and move for regular bail afresh, which the Special Judge shall entertain and decide, considering the bailability of the offences as per the Apex Court's judgment.

---