IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM, JJ.
Ferose S/o Ismayil – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 706 of 2023
Decided On : 04-10-2024
ORDER :
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 21(1) of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, calling for the records and set aside the order dated 18.05.2023 in Crl. M.P. No. 759 of 2023 passed by the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, Chennai in R.C. No. 01/2022/NIA/CHE on the file of the respondent and enlarge the appellants on bail in R.C. No. 01/2022/NIA/CHE on the file of the respondent.
1. Under assail in the present criminal appeal is the order passed by the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 dated 18.05.2023 in Crl. M.P. No. 759 of 2023 in R.C. No. 01/2022/NIA/CHE.
2. The appellants herein are the accused nos.4, 5 and 6. They filed bail application before the trial court under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. The trial court adjudicated the issues and rejected the application, which resulted institution of the present appeal before this court.
3. The facts in nutshell are that, on 23.10.2022, at 0400 hours, an explosion had taken place in front of a temple, namely Arulmigu Kottai Sangameshwarar Thirukovil at Eswaran Kovil Street, Ukkadam, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, wherein a Maruti car bearing Registration No. TN-01-F-6163 was set ablaze. The car was driven by Mr. A. Jamesha Mubeen S/o Abdul Kadar (Late), who was a resident of 19/61 HMPK Street, Kottaimedu, Ukkadam, Coimbatore. Based on the written complaint of the priest, a case was registered at Ukkadam Police Station, Coimbatore City, in Crime No. 207 of 2022 under Sections 174 of Cr.P.C. and 3 (a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, dated 23.10.2022. The Central Government had received information regarding the same and it was opined that a Scheduled Offence under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been committed.
4. Having regard to the gravity of the offense and national and international ramifications, the Central Government thought it fit and took a decision that an investigation must be done by the National Investigation Agency and accordingly, passed an order in proceedings dated 27.10.2022. Consequently, the investigation has been taken up by the National Investigation Agency. F.I.R. has been registered under Section 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, in NIA Police Station, Chennai, and the original F.I.R. submitted before the Special Court was also taken up for Investigation and relevant provisions under law were altered to Sections 120B, 153A IPC, Section 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The accused persons 4, 5 and 6 / appellants herein were arrested on 25.10.2022 at 02.45 hrs and remanded on 25.10.2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Coimbatore.
5. In the above backdrop, Mr. R. Sankara Subbu, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the bail application was filed under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. on the ground that the final report has not been filed before the Special Court. Mere filing of a report would be insufficient to comply with the requirements contemplated under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and thus, the bail application ought to have been considered by the trial Court under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. It is mainly contended that the investigation was incomplete and certain expert reports sent for analysis are also pending. When the investigation is incomplete and police custody petition filed in Crl. M.P. No. 614 of 2023 is pending, the charge sheet filed by the respondent cannot be construed with reference to Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and thus, the present appeal is to be considered.
6. In support of the above contention, Mr. R.Sankara Subbu, learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Kapil Wadhawan and Another, 2024 SCC Online SC 66 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court made an observation that the respondents could not have claimed the statutory right of default bail under Section 167(2
AI
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. ceases once a charge sheet is filed, regardless of pending investigations.
The main legal point established is the entitlement to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the legislative mandate that offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 are to ....
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C is an indefeasible right once the statutory period for filing the charge sheet/challan has lapsed, and offences under UAPA are to be tried exclus....
Default bail – Once a charge-sheet is filed within stipulated time, question of default bail does not arise. It cannot be held that additional documents cannot be produced subsequently.
The court held that the Special Court did not err in dismissing the appellant's bail application, as there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the appellant were prima fac....
The right to apply for default bail is lost once the charge-sheet is filed, and such right does not revive only because further investigation is pending.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.