"CR"

1. In these petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the common petitioner who is the common 7th accused in Crime Nos. 5 and 6 of 2009 of the National Investigation Agency, New Delhi (formerly Crime Nos. 80 and 81 of 2006 of Kasaba and Nadakkavu Police Stations, Kozhikode) for offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 153 A and 324 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and Sections 16 (1)(b), 18 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, seeks his enlargement on bail .

2. The case of the prosecution is that infuriated by the attitude of the Executive and the Judiciary in not granting bail to the Muslim accused persons involved in the Marad Case, the accused persons (9 in number) hatched a criminal conspiracy to make, plant and explode bombs in the K.S.R.T.C. bus stand and Moffusil bus stand in Kozhikode City . The specific allegation as against the petitioner is that he made telephone calls to the Kozhikode Collectorate and office of the Calicut Times daily intimating the planting of bombs.

3. The investigation of the case from the local police was transferred to the CB CID SIG THE PROSECUTION CASE - III on 13-6-2006. Subsequently in the year 2009 the National Investigation Agency was entrusted with the investigation of the above crime by the Government of India.

4. Out of the 9 accused persons mentioned in the F.I.R. A5 was deleted and the remaining 8 persons alone were charge- sheeted by the police and from among the 8 persons A6 was killed in an encounter at Jammu and Kashmir and A2 and A8 are absconding. A3 has been granted bail by this Court. A9 is in judicial custody. A1 and A4 are in custody in Bangalore Jail and are presently not being produced before the Special Court for Trial of N.I.A. Cases, Ernakulam presumably due to security reasons or due to lack of sufficient force.

THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTION

5. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been made an approver to whom pardon has been tendered. The grievance of the petitioner is that on account of the interdict under Section 306 (4) (b) Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was arrested on 19-3-2010 and who was subsequently made an approver is continued to be detained in custody and he will not be released from custody until the termination of the trial in the above cases. Since according to the petitioner, Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked by him in view of the aforementioned interdict, he is invoking the inherent power of this Court under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. for his enlargement on bail. Petitioner assures this Court that he will not resile from his statement when examined before the Magistrate that he will make a full and true disclosure of the entire circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence and relating to every other person concerned and that he will not willfully conceal anything essential or give false evidence during the trial of the case. According to the petitioner the trial of the case may not take place in the near future and if his detention is continued ad infinitum it will offend the Constitutional guarantee of his right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner relies on the following decisions in support of his request for bail under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: -

1) Premchand v. State - 1985 Crl.L.J. 1534 (Delhi F.B.)

2) Noortaki @ Mammu v. State of Rajasthan - 1986 Crl.L.J. 1488 (Rajasthan F.B.)

3) Unreported decision dated 24-1-2002 in Crl.M.C. 537 of 2002 by a learned Judge of this Court in Shyjan v. State of Kerala.

THE REGISTRY'S OBJECTION

6. When these bail applications were filed invoking Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. the Registry of this Court raised an objection that a bail application cannot be filed invoking Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. and accordingly refused to number the applications. In the light of the decisions cited by the petitioner and referred to above, this Court, noticing the judicial precedents to the effect that notwithstanding the bar un