The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused are entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC if the investigation is not completed within the stipulated period. The judgment also emphasizes that a final report under Section 173 of the CrPC can only be filed after completion of the entire investigation of the case in respect of all offences.

JOSEPH, J.

These cases raise common questions of law and are being disposed of by this common order. The Cochin Harbour Police registered Crime No. 3 of 1996 against seven persons for offences punishable under Section 14 of the Foreigners Order, 1948 read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and under section 7(5) of the Territorial Water Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 (the Maritime Zones Act, for convenience sake). The seventh accused is the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 917 of 1996 and accused 1 to 6 are the petitioners in Crl.M.C. No. 918 of 1996. They were arrested on 11-1-1996 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ernakulam on the same day. They are now in judicial custody, on remand.

2. On 8-3-1996, the investigating officer filed a report before the Magistrate including offences under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 in the crime. Even before the expiry of 60 days, the petitioners sought their release on bail under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code). Subsequently, the investigation was made over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as per the notification dated 15-3-1996. In the re-registered case, offences under sections 11 and 12 of Maritime Zones Act, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act (the Act) and Section 4(1) of the Foreigners Order, 1948 (the Order) have been included. On 10-4-1996, the CBI filed a 'charge report' before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. Ernakulam against the petitioners under Section 7(4)(c) and 7(5) of the Maritime Zones Act and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 11 and 12 of the Maritime Zones Act and the case was renumbered as C.C. No. 354 of 1996 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. The report dated 8-3-1996 contained offences under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, Section 4(1) of the Act and Section 109 of the IPC. But in the charge report filed in Court on 10-4-1996, the CBI has not charge-sheeted the accused for offences under section 3(1)(b) of the Official Secrets Act or under the Act or the IPC. Along with the charge report, the CBI has produced the sanction order dated 9-4-1996 to prosecute the petitioners under section 14 of the Maritime Zones Act. But the CBI has not obtained sanction to prosecute against accused 1 to 6 either under the Act or under the Official Secrets Act. It seems that investigation against the petitioners under section 3(1)(b) of the Official Secrets Act and under the Act, Order and IPC is going on. Therefore, the CBI has not filed a final report in regard to those offences stated to have been committed by the petitioners. The CBI, therefore, sought further time to investigate further into those offences under the Official Secrets Act and make a report thereof after the investigation is completed.

3. The application for bail was opposed by the CBI based on Section 167(2) of the Code since it had already filed a charge report under section 173 of the Code and on the ground that the evidence, prima facie, established a case against the petitioners under Section 11 of the Maritime Zones Act. They also contended that since the case was made over to the CBI only on 18-3-1996 and the investigation in respect of the offences under section 3 (1)(b) of the Official Secrets Act and also under the Act, Order and IPC had not been completed, releasing the petitioners on bail would hamper the investigation. In the charge sheet filed before the Magistrate on 10-4-1996, the CBI has stated that the investigation revealed that there were efforts from the contacts of the petitioners in Cochin to help them at various stages for their operation and after their interception and that the investigation has all lead to indicate that there was some larger conspiracy involving violations of other penal laws also and involvement of persons other than persons named in Column No. 1, including local contacts at Cochin and ot