Patna High Court
Mahboob Alam @ Mahboob Alam NadviversusThe Union of India, through the National Investigation Agency
- Decided
- Disposal
- CONVERTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The court permitted conversion of the writ petition to an appropriate petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Mahboob Alam, filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Special Judge, NIA Patna, which extended his judicial custody beyond 90 days and denied his default bail. The petitioner sought to set aside the extension, obtain bail, and declare the extension illegal. The NIA argued that only an appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act, 2008, is maintainable, while the petitioner contended the order was interlocutory and not appealable. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Neeta Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. (SLA No. 13578/2024), the court noted that judicial orders cannot be challenged under Article 226. Consequently, the court granted permission to convert the writ petition into an appropriate petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether the order extending judicial custody beyond 90 days is appealable under Section 21 of the NIA Act, 2008
- Whether an interlocutory judicial order can be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution
- Whether the petitioner may convert the writ petition to a petition under Article 227/Section 528 of the BNSS
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- NIA
- extension of investigation
- judicial custody
- default bail
- Article 226
- Article 227
- Section 21 NIA Act
- interlocutory order
- conversion of petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.215 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2022 Thana- NIA District- Patna
======================================================
Mahboob Alam @ Mahboob Alam Nadvi Son of Abdur Rasheed Resident of
Vill.- Ramnagar Bansi, P.S.- Hasanganj, Dist.- Katihar, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Union of India, through the National Investigation Agency New Delhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kundan Kumar Ojha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Dr Krishna Nandan Singh, ASG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-02-2026 The present writ petition has been filed seeking the
following reliefs:-
“(i) That, an appropriate writ/s, order/s,
direction/s; be issued to set aside the order
dated 11/12/2025; passed by the learned
Special Judge, NIA-Patna (Annexure-P/3),
in Spl Case No. 06/2025, R.C.
31/2022/NIA/DLI, arising out of
Phulwarisharif P.S. Case no 827/2022,
whereby and whereunder the learned
Special Judge, NIA Patna has been
pleased to allow the application dated
08/12/2025, filed on behalf of the NIA;
seeking extension of the period of
Investigation beyond 90 days to 180 days,
and authorized the judicial custody of
petitioner for the same period.
(ii) That an appropriate writ an
appropriate writ/s, order/s, direction/s; be
issued directing the Special Court NIA, to
allow the default bail application dated
16/12/2025 of the petitioner, (Annexure P-
4) and Grant Default Bail to the petitioner,
and consequently release the petitioner on
bail, subject to such terms and conditions
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.215 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026
2/3
as this Hon'ble Court deems fit.
(iii) That an appropriate writ/s, order/s,
direction/s; be issued; declaring that, the
extension of detention granted to the
petitioner, beyond 90 days was bad in law
for want of “specific reasons” and due to
the sluggish pace of investigation;
And/or
(iv) Any other relief/reliefs as this Hon’ble
High Court may deem fit and appropriate
in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.”
02. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NIA
submits that an appeal would only be maintainable against the
impugned order in terms of Section 21 of the NIA Act, 2008.
03. However the same is opposed by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner who submits that the
present order being an interlocutory order is not appealable.
04. Apparently, the petitioner has challenged the
judicial order and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Neeta Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. passed in Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 13578/2024 has categorically held
that the judicial orders are not amenable to challenge under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
05. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks permission to convert the present petition to an
appropriate petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India/Section 528 of the BNSS.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.215 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026
3/3
06. Permission is accorded.
07. He is directed to convert the same within one
week.
08. Office is directed to extend all cooperation
towards conversion.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
U T
Checking your session…