The ruling emphasizes that under the UAPA, bail must be denied when a prima facie case exists, demanding careful consideration of the evidence presented without delving into its admissibility at this stage.

JUDGMENT

Alexander Thomas, J.

The aforecaptioned Crl.Appeal has been instituted by the afore bail applicant/accused, under Sec.21(4) of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008.

2. The appellant/bail applicant has been arrayed as accused No.4 in the instant Crime No.1172/2016 of Kollam West Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.120B, 307, 427, 324, 121 & 122 of the IPC and Sec.3(a)(iii) of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property (PDPP) Act, 1984 and Secs.15, 16(b), 18 & 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act [ UAPA ], 1967. Altogether, there are four accused in the said crime, in which the appellant/applicant has been arrayed as A-4 therein. The Investigating Agency has completed the investigation and has filed final report in the said case on 08.09.2017, i.e., within the prescribed time limit.

Thereafter, the Sessions Court concerned has taken cognizance of the offences, which has led to the pendency of Sessions Case, S.C No.1287/2017 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Kollam. Earlier, the applicant was remanded to judicial custody, in relation to his involvement in the instant crime, and his plea for regular bail under Sec.439 of the Cr.P.C, has been rejected as per the impugned Annexure-A2 order dated 16.07.2022 rendered by the Prl.Sessions Court, Kollam in Crl.M.C No.1293/2022 in S.C No.1287/2017. Being aggrieved by the rejection of regular bail, the applicant has preferred the instant Crl.Appeal under Sec.21(4) of the NIA Act, as above.

3. Heard Sri.T.K.Kunhabdulla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/applicant/A4 and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondent (State of Kerala).

4. The gist of the prosecution case in the above crime is that, for the purpose of wrecking vengeance, on account of the killing of one Smt.Israth Jahan and three others in Gujarat and with the intention of disrupting the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India, the four accused persons in the above crime (A-1 to A-4) had hatched the criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, blasted a bomb on 15.06.2016, at about 10.45 a.m., in the compound of the Kollam Collectorate. That, the said bomb explosion damaged a Government Jeep, bearing registration No.KL 01/G-603, which is owned by the Labour Department of the State Government, which was then lying at the premises of the Kollam Collectorate and that, one person, named Sri.Sabu, who was standing nearby, also sustained injuries. That, thereby the accused persons have committed the aforementioned offences, as per the IPC , PDPP Act & UAPA , as mentioned above.

5. The appellant would urge that earlier, he was in judicial custody from 29.11.2016, on account of his involvement in a connected crime incident and that, he was granted bail in all the cases subsequently registered to the instant crime, viz., Crime No.48/2016 of Chittoor Police Station, Andhra Pradesh and Crime No.239/2016 of Nelloor Town Police Station. Further that, in the instant case, final report, by way of charge sheet, was filed by the Investigati0n Agency in the instant Crime No.1172/2016 of Kollam West Police Station on 08.09.2017, which was done within the statutorily stipulated time limit of 180 days. Hence, the appellant could not secure default bail in the instant case. The final report was initially filed under Sec.173(2) of the Cr.P.C on 08.09.2017. The learned Prosecutor has stated that later, an additional/supplementary final report was also filed in the instant case on 24.10.2017 under Sec.173(8) Cr.P.C.

6. The Sessions Court has rejected the bail application, as per the impugned Annexure-A2 order, mainly on the ground that the restrictive parameters envisaged by the Union Legislature, as per the proviso to Sec.43-D(5) of the UAPA , has to be strictly adhered to by the bail courts and that, going by the parameters therein, as laid down by the Apex Court rulings, if, after perusal of the mater