KUNHANANDAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is the 13th accused in Crime No. 433 of 2012 of Vadakara Police Station, who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, 120B, 109, 118, 201, 212, 46 and 471 Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, has approached this court again seeking bail. The petitioner along with two other accused persons, namely, accused Nos. 8 and 14, had on an earlier occasion approached this court for the very same relief by filing B.A. 6580 of 2012, which was dismissed by order dated 18.9.2012. In the said order, the facts have been narrated in detail and therefore, it is unnecessary to reiterate the facts in this order again.

(2.) Apart from contending that the materials collected during investigation against the petitioner is totally insufficient to prima facie show that he is involved, a novel contention is now taken based on Annexure II to the effect that the so-called final report filed by the investigating agency cannot be treated as a final report, since in the so-called final report said to have been filed by the investigating officer, he reserves the right to continue the investigation and right to file further reports. The contention is that, if that be so, the so-called final report said to have been filed can be treated only as an interim report and the final report is yet to be filed. If that be so, the petitioner has been in custody from 23.6.2012 onwards, and the period of 90 days as contemplated under Section 167(2)(a) Cr.P.C. is over, and the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail. It is further contended that by styling the report now filed as final report, the petitioner cannot be denied his statutory right and Cr.P.C. does not envisage piecemeal filing of final reports at all. At any rate, according to the learned counsel, it could not be said that the final report now before court, on the basis of which cognizance of the offence has been taken and the matter has been committed to the Sessions Court, can be called as a final report in the eye of law. Even though the petitioner approached the lower court for bail on the basis of the above contention, it is pointed out that without properly appreciating the law on the point, the application has been dismissed.

(3.) Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand contended that apart from the fact that the above contention was available even on the earlier occasion, the contention lacks merit in the eye of law. The contention now taken that final report filed, on the basis of which cognizance has been taken by the JFCM court concerned, and the case has been committed to the Sessions Court, is not a final report cannot be countenanced. It is true, according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, that by way of abundant caution, the investigating officer has stated that further probe may be necessary in the matter to ascertain the involvement of other persons. But that does not mean that the report now filed is not a final report. The above contention, according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, was not urged when the petitioner appeared in pursuance to the summons issued by the court or at the time when copies of the documents were handed over under Section 207 Cr.P.C., or at the time of committal under Section 209 Cr.P.C. At no point of time, the petitioner had contended that the report, on the basis of which cognizance was taken by the JFCM court concerned, is not a final report. Frustrated by the successive failures to get bail, the petitioner has now come forward with an untenable contention, which, according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, is only to be rejected.