LAWS(KER)-2019-3-40

M.K. NASER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On March 13, 2019
M.K. Naser Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third accused in S.C.No.1/2015/NIA, a case charge sheeted by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) before the Special Court for NIA cases, Ernakulam, is in appeal before us challenging the rejection of his bail application filed as Crl.M.P.No.160/2018 vide impugned order dated 15.01.2019 of the learned Special Judge.

(2.) It is submitted that the appellant was originally accused No.28 in Crime No.704/2010 registered at Muvattupuzha Police Station, investigation of which was taken over by the NIA. Though 37 accused were arraigned, only 31 faced trial in the case, taken on file as S.C.No.1/2013. That parent case was disposed of on 30.04.2015 and the case against the appellant and some others was split up and refiled as S.C.No.1/2015. The appellant remained absconding, and after being a fugitive for about five years, he surrendered on 06.11.2015 and has been in judicial custody ever since. He was taken to several places by the NIA. The trial is yet to commence.

(3.) The appellant seeks indulgence of this Court to upset the findings of the court below refusing to grant him bail. He has been in custody from 06.11.2015, and there is little possibility of the trial commencing immediately. It is further pointed out by the appellant that in the judgment disposing of the parent case, it was observed by the court below that the prosecution did not succeed in establishing the alleged conspiracy hatched by the accused at three places, namely, Seemas Auditorium, Perumbavoor, Kothamangalam Municipal Park and KWA Inspection Bungalow, Muvattupuzha, on 28.03.2010, 03.05.2010 and 03.10.2010 respectively. Admittedly, there is no direct involvement of this accused in the alleged assault. The prosecution case is that he was the kingpin of the alleged conspiracy. The prosecution having failed to prove the conspiracy, has no evidence to rope in this accused. Despite that, he is being incarcerated unnecessarily, curtailing his liberty. The impugned order is therefore, set as liable to be set aside, and he be released on bail is the prayer of the appellant.