Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. These appeals are by the accused persons in S.C.No.2 of 2013 of the Special Court for trial of NIA cases, Kerala. There are two appeals. Initially, all the 21 accused persons had jointly filed application for bail on the premise that they are entitled to bail, since what is presented as the final report by the NIA is not a final report as enjoined by Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, they are entitled to bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That application stands dismissed. Hence, Crl. Appeal No.1711 of 2013 arising from Crl.M.P.No.100 of 2013. The second application for bail was filed by accused Nos.8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19 and 21 stating various personal reasons, including the reason that they are of tender age, i.e., 20 to 21 years and that on the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is no more necessary to continue them in custody and that sufficient grounds exist to enlarge them on bail under whatever conditions that may be imposed by the Court. That application also stands dismissed. That gives rise to Crl. Appeal No.1675 of 2013 arising from Crl.M.P.No.118 of 2013.

2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the accused persons in support of these appeals argued that what was presented by the NIA before the court below, as if it is a final report, is not so and notwithstanding the fact that it is shown that the NIA court is shown to have taken cognizance on the basis of that report on 19.10.2013, the said materials can never be treated as a final report and hence, the accused persons are entitled to the benefits of eligibility to bail on the expiry of the period fixed in terms of Section 167(2), as modified as per the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, for short, the 'UAP Act'. In support of the connected appeal, it is argued that the age of the accused persons who are the appellants in that case may be considered and a lenient view may be taken to enlarge them on bail.

3. Per contra, the learned Special Prosecutor for NIA argued that there is no reason whatsoever to hold that what has been presented by NIA before the court below is not a final report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He argued that the contents in paragraph 18.6 of that report on which reliance is made by the learned senior counsel for the appellants are not indicative of any element that would show that what has been produced before the court below is not a final report.

4. In its sum and substance, the argument on behalf of the appellants is that paragraph 18.6 of the final report clearly discloses that the investigation is not complete and what has been produced before the court below immediately on the day preceding the statutory period of 180 days is only a half baked and made as an incomplete report which cannot be treated as a final report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. To appreciate this argument, we think that it is appropriate to quote paragraph 18.6 of the final report, which reads as follows:

“18.6. Foreign bank transaction details are to be collected and the Call Data Records have to be further analyzed. Records pertaining to Thanal Foundation Trust need to be collected and verified. Hence, further investigation is inevitable and is in progress. Additional list of witnesses, additional statements of witnesses and additional list of documents will be filed in due course. Hence it is also prayed that further investigation u/s 173(8) Cr.PC may kindly be permitted.”

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants made reference to the decisions of this Court in Vijayaraghavan v. C.B.I (1984 KLT 522) and in Furtado v. C.B.I (1996 (2) KLT 1) in which the Division Bench accepted the statements of law made in Vijayaraghavan (supra) and followed it as a precedent. The argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the appellants is that, as laid down in those precedents, whe