(1.) This appeal under Sec. 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act), has been filed by accused no.19 (A19) against the order dtd. 24/01/2023 in Crl.M.P.No.67/2022 in S.C.No.2/2021/NIA/KOC, by which order the request for bail under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the Special Court for the trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam.
(2.) In the appeal memorandum it is alleged that the Special court went wrong in holding that a prima facie case has been made out based on a delayed and improper identification of the appellant/A19 from a video clipping alleged to have been shown to CW204 Shobha, the approver, who was initially accused no.20 (A20) in the crime. The approver never mentioned the involvement of the appellant/A19 in her earlier statements to the investigating agencies, that is, neither in Annexure-II 164 statement -recorded on 29/03/2021 nor in Annexure-VI 161 statement dtd. 07/11/2021 to the NIA. The trial court also went wrong in finding that the applicant/A19 has been identified by CW196 and CW197, his neighbour and brother respectively, based on some video clipping, the particulars of which are not clear from the materials on record. Bail is also sought on medical grounds alleging that the applicant/A19 is suffering from serious ailments relating to his kidney.
(3.) The application is strongly objected to by the learned Central Government Counsel, who pointed out that the trial court was perfectly right in rejecting the request for bail holding that a prima facie case against the appellant/A19 has been made out from the records. The appellant, a member of the proscribed terrorist organization, namely, CPI (Maoist), had participated in an armed training camp and therefore it would not be proper or safe to release him on bail. There are chances of the appellant/A19 absconding and rejoining the proscribed organization and getting actively involved in terrorist activities. The release of the appellant on bail would hamper the chances of apprehending the absconding accused persons and hence the argument is that the appeal lacks merit.