Jharkhand High Court: No Mercy for NIA Appeals Filed After 90-Day Deadline
Case No: Criminal Appeal (D.B.) (Filing) No. 26650 of 2025
By Sandhya kaika
The Jharkhand High Court has delivered a stern reminder on the “uncondonable” nature of statutory deadlines. A Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Hon’ble Justice Deepak Roshan dismissed a criminal appeal filed by Amar Yasar, ruling that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals filed beyond the 90-day maximum limit prescribed under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008.
The appellant, Amar Yasar, challenged a trial court order from July 2025 that extended his investigation period by 60 days in a case involving B.N.S. and UA(P) Act charges. However, the High Court Registry flagged the appeal as barred by limitation because it was filed after the maximum statutory window of 90 days allowed by Section 21(5) of the NIA Act.
The appellant’s counsel, Md. Mokhtar Khan, argued that Section 21(5) is “directory” rather than mandatory. He contended that:
The word “may” in the law gives the High Court power to condone delays beyond 90 days.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act should apply to prevent a “travesty of justice”.
Conversely, the Special P.P. argued that the law is a “negative covenant”. Relying on the court’s previous ruling in Vimal Kumar Paswan vs. State of Jharkhand, the State maintained that the 90-day cap is absolute to ensure speedy trials under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Bench reaffirmed that while the first proviso of the Act allows for a 30-day extension based on “sufficient cause,” the second proviso is a hard stop: “no appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of period of ninety days”.
Courts cannot “carve out exceptions” or rewrite statutes, even if they cause hardship. Quoting the maxim “dura lex sed lex,” the court noted that legal enactments must be interpreted in their plain sense. While sympathy might favor an appellant, it cannot override a written statutory command.
The High Court sustained the Registry’s objection and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
