JUDGMENT : Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for modification of bail order dated 27.02.2018 passed in B.A. No.963 of 2018. 2. This bail application was filed by the petitioner as he was taken in custody, in connection with Garu P.S. Case No.32 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No.604 of 2017, which was pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Latehar. 3. The offences which was alleged committed by the petitioner was punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 17 of the CLA Act, Sections 25(1-A), 26(2)/35 of the Arms Act and Sections 16/20/23 of the UPA Act. 4. Considering the custody of the petitioner, the petitioner was granted bail on 27.02.2018. 5. The petitioner did not file the bail bonds on the ground that he was in custody in some other case being F.I.R. being RC-14/2017/NIA/DLI, corresponding to Special (NIA) Case No.02 of 2017. Thereafter, the petitioner has been granted bail in the aforesaid case in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.380 of 2024. During the intervening period, the NIA took over the investigation and Section 121A, 123A, 386, 411 and 120B of IPC, and further, Sections 17, 18, 19, 23, 39 and 40 of UAPA were also added. All these offences are triable by Special NIA Court. 6. Petitioner submits that when the petitioner was already granted bail, he may be allowed to furnish the bail bonds and the order be kindly be modified to the effect that this order of bail be made applicable in the NIA case being RC 03/2021/NIA/2021 also. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NIA opposes the prayer and submits that since some more Sections have been added and all the offences are triable by the NIA Court, the petitioner has to move before the NIA Court and if the bail is rejected, then appeal will be heard by the Division Bench, hence this modification should not be allowed. 8. After hearing the parties, I find that petitioner was earlier granted bail. Initially, the case was not handed over to NIA. The F.I.R. was initially registered under Sections 120B of IPC, Section 17 CLA Act, Sections 25(1-A), 26(2) and 35 of the Arms Act and Sections 16, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). 9. 8. After hearing the parties, I find that petitioner was earlier granted bail. Initially, the case was not handed over to NIA. The F.I.R. was initially registered under Sections 120B of IPC, Section 17 CLA Act, Sections 25(1-A), 26(2) and 35 of the Arms Act and Sections 16, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). 9. Before the petitioner could be released, the matter was taken by the NIA and now cognizance has been taken in Special NIA Case No.3 of 2021, under Section 121A, 123A, 386, 411 and 120B of IPC, Sections 25(1- A), 26(2) of the Arms Act and Sections 17, 18, 19, 23, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act by the NIA Court. 10. The modification as sought by the petitioner amounts to extending bail of the petitioner for these offences also, which will be applicable to schedule offence under NIA Act. Be it noted that the petitioner has already been remanded in this case. 11. Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 provides provision of appeal. It is a statutory provision. Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act is quoted hereunder:- 21. Appeals. —(1) 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 both on facts and on law. (2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a bench of two Judges of the High Court and shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of admission of the appeal. (3) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, sentence or order including an interlocutory order of a Special Court. (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. (3) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, sentence or order including an interlocutory order of a Special Court. (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. (5) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of thirty days: Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of period of ninety days. 12. Section 21(4) provides for filing an appeal against that order of Special Court granting or refusing bail. 13. Further Section 21(2) mandates that every appeal should be heard by a Bench of two Judges of the High Court. 14. In this case, the petitioner in grab of modification wants to extend the order of bail granted earlier, to NIA’s case also. The single Bench of this Court cannot pass any order which amounts to extending bail in NIA’s cases. If the single Bench passes any order, then it would be a jurisdictional error and will be in conflict with Section 21(2) of the National Investigation Agency Act, as a single Bench lacks jurisdiction to hear any appeal. 15. Further, in view of paragraph 30 of the judgment of Pradeep Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and another , reported in ( 2019) 17 SCC 326 , if new Sections are added, the accused needs to file a bail application. Para 30 quoted hereunder:- “ 30. Coming back to the present case, the appellant was already into jail custody with regard to another case and the investigating agency applied before the Special Judge, NIA Court to grant production warrant to produce the accused before the Court. The Special Judge having accepted the prayer of grant of production warrant, the accused was produced before the Court on 26-6-2018 and remanded to custody. Thus, in the present case, production of the accused was with the permission of the Court. The Special Judge having accepted the prayer of grant of production warrant, the accused was produced before the Court on 26-6-2018 and remanded to custody. Thus, in the present case, production of the accused was with the permission of the Court. Thus, the present is not a case where investigating agency itself has taken into custody the appellant after addition of new offences rather the accused was produced in the Court in pursuance of production warrant obtained from the Court by the investigating agency. We, thus do not find any error in the procedure which was adopted by the Special Judge, NIA Court with regard to production of the appellant before the Court. In the facts of the present case, it was not necessary for the Special Judge to pass an order cancelling the bail dated 10-3-2016 [Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand, 2016 SCC OnLine Jhar 3254] granted to the appellant before permitting the appellant- accused to be produced before it or remanding him to the judicial custody.” 16. Considering the aforesaid facts and law, this application stands dismissed. 17. Petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh bail application before the Special Judge.