Back
2015 Supreme(Ker) 1245
KERALA HIGH COURT
K.T. SANKARAN & RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JJ.
Antony Das – Appellant
Vs.
State of Kerala – Respondent
Cri. Appeal No. 1036 of 2015
Decided On : 12-11-2015
Subject
Bail - Default Bail
Act Referred
EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT : S.7
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.489(a), S.489(b), S.489(c), S.34
UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT : S.16, S.43(d)(2), S.45(2), S.18, S.18(a), S.43(d)(2)(b)
Headnote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 173( 8) & 167( 2) - Final Report by Police - Investigation - Filing of Charge Sheet - Further investigation by Police - Whether permissible - Detention of the accused beyond the period of 90 days - Whether report submitted by Public Prosecutor for extension of the period is necessary - Held, On a perusal of the charge sheet filed in the present case, we do not think that the charge sheet was filed only to curtail the right of the accused to get default bail. All the relevant materials for the purpose of taking cognizance of the offence and for conducting trial are available in the charge sheet - Court may, in appropriate cases, even permit further investigation to be made after taking cognizance of the offence. The question whether a Court would be able to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the charge sheet filed by the investigating officer is the material aspect to be considered. As stated above, on a perusal of the final report, it cannot be said that it was filed by the NIA only to defeat the rights of the appellant to get default bail under the proviso to S.167(2) - applicant had sought time for filing objection to the application seeking extension and also for hearing the matter. An application filed by the accused for release on bail and also a prayer for extension of time to complete the investigation filed by the Prosecutor are to be considered together
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
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. The investigation was taken over by the National Investigation Agency (NIA for short). NIA filed a final report dated 23.7.2015, within the extended period under the proviso to Section 43D(2) of the UAP Act.
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 Cri. A. No. 402 of 2015. The final report was filed by the NIA before Cri. 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 Cri. 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 Cri. 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.
4. Thereafter, the appellant filed Cri. M.P. No. 146 of 2015 before the court below raising the aforesaid contention. The court below rejected the contention raised by the appellant and dismissed the application filed by the appellant. It was held that the appellant cannot take shelter under paragraph 18.4 of the final report that investigation of the case is being continued and contend that he is entitled to default bail. The order dated 23.9.2015 in Cri. M.P. No. 146 of 2015 is under challenge in this Criminal Appeal.
5. The final report filed in the case reveals that the prosecution case is the following:
On 26.1.2013, the officers of the Customs Department, Cochin intercepted a passenger Abid Chullikulavan (accused No. 1) at Nedumbassery International Airport when he was coming from Dubai and seized 1950 numbers of counterfeit Indian Currency Notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/- from him. The investigation revealed that Kunjumohammed alias Kunjutty (accused No. 6), who was undergoing sentence in Central Prison, Mumbai earlier, got acquaintance with K.M. Abdullah, who was a convict in a murder case. Through K.M. Abdullah, accused No. 6 got acquaintance with Antony Das (appellant/ accused No. 4) and Mohammed Haneefa (accused No. 2). They agreed to smuggle high quality of counterfeit Indian Currency Notes to India with the help of the other accused. The appellant procured genuine Indian Currency Notes to the tune of Rupees four lakhs for obtaining counterfeit Indian Currency Notes. The genuine Indian Currency Notes were used for procuring counterfeit Indian Currency Notes printed at Pakistan
