ANTONY DAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this Criminal Appeal is whether the statement in the final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that "it is, further submitted that the investigation of the case is being continued and further evidence is also being collected against the accused arrested as well as absconders" would make the report other than a final report, enabling the accused to invoke the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for default bail.

(2.) Antony Das, the appellant, is accused No.4 in S.C.No.4 of 2015 on the file of the Special Court for NIA Cases, Ernakulam. The crime was originally registered at Nedumbassery Police Station alleging offences punishable under Sections 489A, 489B and 489C read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was later transferred to the Crime Branch and they re-registered the case. Thereafter, Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the UAP Act') were also incorporated.

(3.) Before filing the final report, the appellant filed an application for bail, which was dismissed by the court below. The appellant challenged that order in Crl.A.No.402 of 2015. The final report was filed by the NIA before Crl.A.No.402 of 2015 was taken up for hearing. A contention was taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that the final report was not really a final report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to default bail. The contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant was objected to by the learned counsel for NIA on the ground that no specific ground was taken in Crl.A.No.402 of 2015 with respect to the same. A Division Bench of this Court (in which Justice K.T.Sankaran was a party) dismissed Crl.A.No.402 of 2015 on the merits. However, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with respect to the question whether the alleged final report filed by NIA is really a final report and whether the appellant is entitled to default bail was left open to be considered by the court below.