ORDER : Veerappa, J The present criminal appeal is filed by the appellant/Accused No.5 under the provisions of Section 12 of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000 (‘KCOC Act’ for short) against the Order dated 20th February, 2021 made in Spl.C.C. No.872/2018 on the file of the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, insofar as dismissal of his petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in a pending special case. 2. Earlier, the very appellant filed Criminal Petition No.3393/2021. In the said criminal petition, Learned Counsel for the appellant has filed a memo seeking permission to convert criminal petition into criminal appeal and the Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that he has no objection for the same. Accordingly, the Learned Single Judge of this Court by the Order dated 12th August, 2021 permitted to convert the said criminal petition into criminal appeal, thereby the present criminal appeal is filed by the appellant. 3. When the present criminal appeal came up before the Learned Single Judge of this Court on 6.7.2022, Learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out that in certain special enactments like the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 {‘SC & ST (POA) Act’ for short}, The National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (‘NIA Act’ for short) and similar other Acts, there is a special provision to file an appeal before this Court against granting or refusing bail and in KCOC Act , the same is not provided. The Learned Single Judge of this Court noticing that there is no such provision found in the KCOC Act to file an appeal against an order of the Special Court granting or refusing bail and since both criminal petition as well as criminal appeal are being filed and entertained by this Court, referred the matter to Larger Bench, to decide on the following point: Against granting or refusing bail by a Special Court, wherein the provisions of KCOC Act are invoked, whether it is criminal petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. or a criminal appeal under Section 12 of the KCOC Act, which is maintainable.'' 4. Accordingly, the matter is placed before this Court as per the orders of the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice dated 2.9.2022. I. Brief facts of the case 5. Accordingly, the matter is placed before this Court as per the orders of the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice dated 2.9.2022. I. Brief facts of the case 5. It is the case of the prosecution that on the strength of complaint filed by one Mrs. Kavitha Lankesh, sister of deceased Mrs. Gowri Lankesh, criminal law was set into motion by registering the case in Crime No.221/2017 of Rajarajeswarinagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 114, 118 r/w Section 35 of IPC, Section 3 of KCOC Act and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. It is further alleged in the complaint that deceased Mrs. Gowri Lankesh was working as Journalist and also a Progressive thinker. The sister of the complainant used to reside alone at Rajarajeswarinagar. On 5.9.2017 at about 8.26 p.m. mother of the complainant received a phone call stating that something had happened to Mrs. Gowri Lankesh at her residence. Immediately, the complainant and family members rushed to the house of Mrs. Gowri Lankesh at Rajarajeshwarinagar. They found a car was parked in front of gate near the main road and sister of the complainant viz., deceased Mrs. Gowri Lankesh was lying in pool of blood. The complainant also noticed that near the body of deceased, there were some cartridge pieces and by suspecting that some miscreants have committed murder of her sister filed the complaint. On the basis of the complaint, case was registered in Crime No.221/2017 by the jurisdictional Police. Thereafter, Government has decided to probe the issue by constituting a Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’). The SIT during course of investigation has arrested the accused and on completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet. 6. During the pendency of the said petition, Accused Nos.5,6,8,9,13 and 14 filed the petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail. The Learned Sessions Judge considering the material on record by the Order dated 20.2.2021 dismissed the bail petition. Hence the present appeal is filed by the appellant/Accused No.5 insofar as rejection of his petition for grant of bail. 7. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. II. Arguments advanced by Sri Basavaraj Sappannavar, Learned Counsel for the appellant 8. Hence the present appeal is filed by the appellant/Accused No.5 insofar as rejection of his petition for grant of bail. 7. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. II. Arguments advanced by Sri Basavaraj Sappannavar, Learned Counsel for the appellant 8. Sri Basavaraj Sappannavar, Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the KCOC Act, only criminal petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable and in fact earlier, the appellant has filed criminal petition No.3393/2021 and by a wrong notion, appellant filed the memo seeking permission of the Court to convert the said criminal petition into criminal appeal and the Learned Counsel for the respondent had also submitted no objection for the same, thereby this Court permitted to convert criminal petition into criminal appeal. He submits that in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the KCOC Act, only criminal petition is maintainable and not criminal appeal. Therefore, he seeks permission of the Court to proceed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. III. Arguments advanced by Sri Ashok N. Naik, Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State 9. Sri Ashok N. Naik, Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State appointed for this case contended that neither this appeal filed by the appellant under Section 12 of the KCOC Act nor the petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable against the order granting or refusing bail by a Special Court and the only remedy available to the aggrieved party is to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. In support of his contention, Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor relied upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of USMANBHAI DAWOODBHAI MEMON vs. STATE OF GUJARAT, (1988)2 SCC 271 . IV. Arguments advanced by Sri Vijaykumar Majage, Learned Addl. SPP 11. Sri Vijaykumar Majage, Learned Addl. SPP, on being requested to assist the Court, has contended that a careful reading of the provisions of Section-12 of the KCOC Act clearly depict that an appeal shall lie from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court to the High Court. Admittedly, the impugned Order dated 20.2.2021 made in Spl.CC No.872/2018 is a dismissal of the petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby it is an interlocutory order. Admittedly, the impugned Order dated 20.2.2021 made in Spl.CC No.872/2018 is a dismissal of the petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby it is an interlocutory order. He would further contend that grant or refusal of a bail application is essentially an interlocutory order and there is no finality attached to such an order of the Special Court and therefore, the only remedy to the appellant is to file criminal petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While bringing to the notice of the Court certain special enactments referred by the Learned Single Judge, Learned Addl. SPP contended that insofar as NIA Act is concerned, there is a specific provision under Section 21(4) of the said Act to file an appeal before this Court against an order of the Special Court granting or refusing bail. 12. Learned Addl. SPP further contended that insofar as SC & ST (POA) Act is concerned, there is a specific provision under Section 14A(2) of the said Act to file an appeal before this Court against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail. Learned Addl. SPP would contend that there is no such provision found in the KCOC Act to file an appeal against the order of the Special Court granting or refusing bail. The present appeal is filed against the order refusing bail by the Special Court, which is admittedly an interlocutory order and therefore, the appeal is not maintainable and the appellant has to file the petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail. 13. In support of his contention, Learned Addl. SPP relied upon the dictum of the Learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of ROOPESH R vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, Crl. P. No. 2722/2020, Date 04-11-2020. It was a petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court for grant of bail in Crime No.60/2019 registered by the jurisdictional Police for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 427, 302, 201 r/w 149 IPC r/w Section 3 of KCOC Act. P. No. 2722/2020, Date 04-11-2020. It was a petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court for grant of bail in Crime No.60/2019 registered by the jurisdictional Police for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 427, 302, 201 r/w 149 IPC r/w Section 3 of KCOC Act. In the said matter, the Learned SPP therein raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the petition and referring to Section 12 of KCOC Act, he submitted that if the Special Court refuses to grant bail, that order has to be challenged before this Court by preferring an appeal. The Learned Single Judge of this Court considering the material on record observed that order passed by the Special Court on a bail application is an interlocutory order and against the said order, the appeal under Section 12(1) of the KCOC Act does not lie before this Court and the petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lies before this Court. V Consideration 14. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged by the Learned Counsel for the parties, it is relevant to consider the object and provisions of certain special enactments to decide the reference. 15. The provisions of Section 12 of the KCOC Act reads as under : 12. Appeal. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the code, an appeal shall lie from any judgement, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special court to the High Court. (2) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within thirty days from the date of the judgment, sentence or order. 16. A careful reading of the above provision makes it clear that the provision starts with non-obstante clause, i.e., notwithstanding anything contained in the code, an appeal shall lie from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court to the High Court, thereby the Legislature has made it clear that the appeal does not lie against the interlocutory order dismissing the bail petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal procedure. 17. The provisions of Section 21(4) of the NIC Act reads as under: 21 (4): Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Code, an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court granting or refusing bail. 18. 17. The provisions of Section 21(4) of the NIC Act reads as under: 21 (4): Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Code, an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court granting or refusing bail. 18. A careful reading of the above provision makes it clear that an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court granting or refusing bail. 19. The provisions of Section 14A(2) of the SC & ST (POA) Act reads as under: 14A(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail. 20. A careful reading of the above provision makes it clear that an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail. 21. In view of the above, it is clear that in certain special enactments like the SC & ST (POA) Act, NIA Act etc., there is a special provision to file an appeal before the High Court against granting or refusing bail, but in the KCOC Act, the same is not provided. 22. It is relevant to state that the object of the KCOC Act is to make special provisions for prevention and control of, and for coping with, criminal activity by organized crime syndicate or gang, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 23. The object of the NIC Act is to constitute an investigating agency at the national level to investigate and prosecute offences affecting the sovereignty, security and integrity of India, security of State, friendly relations with foreign States and offences under Acts enacted to implement international treaties, agreements, conventions and resolutions of the United Nations, its agencies and other international organisations and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 24. 24. The object of the SC & ST (POA) Act is to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, to provide for Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 25. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of IRFAN PASHA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, Crl. A. No. 755/2021, DD: 29-03-2022 wherein this Court while considering the provisions of Section 21 of the NIA Act relying on the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs. MOHD. HUSSAIN, (2014)14 SCC 258 held that an appeal is maintainable before the Division Bench of the High Court only against an interlocutory order granting or refusing bail under section 21 of the NIA Act. 26. By careful reading of the objects of KCOC Act, NIA Act and SC & ST(POA) Act, it is clear that the objects of these Acts are entirely different. Learned Single Judge referred to some of the provisions of these Acts. As per Section 21(4) of the NIA Act, “an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court granting or refusing bail.” As per Section 14A(2) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail. Whereas, Section 12 of the KCOC Act starts with non- obstante clause notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, an appeal shall lie from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court to the High Court, thereby the Legislature while enacting the KCOC Act specifically made it clear that if the order is interlocutory order, appeal cannot be preferred. Admittedly in the present case, the Special Court constituted under KCOC Act has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant/accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not in dispute that an order granting or refusing bail is an interlocutory order. Being an interlocutory order of the Special Court, appeal to the High Court is not maintainable. It is not in dispute that an order granting or refusing bail is an interlocutory order. Being an interlocutory order of the Special Court, appeal to the High Court is not maintainable. Thereby, the only remedy for the appellant or the aggrieved party against the order of refusal or granting of bail is to file petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court. 27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of USMANBHAI DAWOODBHAI MEMON vs. STATE OF GUJARAT (Supra), while considering the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 19(2) and 20 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1987 (‘TADA Act’for short) held that the Court must interpret the words ‘not being an interlocutory order’ used in Section 19(1) in their natural sense in furtherance of the object and purpose of the Act to exclude any interference with the proceedings before a Designated Court at an intermediate stage. There is no finality attached to an order of a Designated Court granting or refusing bail. Such an application for bail can always be renewed from time to time. That being so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the contention advanced on behalf of the State Government that the impugned orders passed by the Designated Courts therein refusing to grant bail were not interlocutory orders and therefore appealable under Section 19(1) of the Act, cannot be accepted. 28. It is also to be stated that Section 19(1) of the TADA Act depicts that an appeal shall lie as a matter of right from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Designated Court to the Supreme Court both on facts and on law. The object and the provisions of the TADA Act and the object and the provisions of the KCOC Act are quite similar. The Apex Court in the above judgment also held that it cannot be doubted that the grant or refusal of a bail application is essentially an interlocutory order and there is no finality to such an order because an application for bail can always be renewed from time to time. Admittedly in the present case, the order passed by the Special Court dismissing the bail petition filed by the appellant/ accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby there is no finality attached to the said order of the Special Court. 29. Admittedly in the present case, the order passed by the Special Court dismissing the bail petition filed by the appellant/ accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby there is no finality attached to the said order of the Special Court. 29. In view of the above, the contention of the Learned Special Public Prosecutor that only remedy to the aggrieved party against the order granting or refusing bail by the Special Court under KCOC Act is to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court, cannot be accepted and infact the criminal petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable. VI. Result 30. For the reasons stated above, we answer the reference as under: Against granting or refusing bail by a Special Court, wherein the provisions of KCOC Act are invoked, criminal petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable and criminal appeal under Section 12 of the KCOC Act is not maintainable.” 31. Office is directed to post the matter before the appropriate Bench as per the roster to proceed further in accordance with law. 32. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to circulate copy of this order among all the concerned officers working on the judicial side of this Court, after prior permission from the Hon’ble Chief Justice. The valuable assistance rendered by Sri Vijaykumar Majage, Learned Addl. SPP is appreciated and placed on record.