The court established that the right to statutory bail ceases once a final report is filed, regardless of subsequent investigations.

The applications are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Code’, for the sake of brevity), by the accused 1 & 2 in Crime No.706/2023 of the Nallalam Police Station, Kozhikode, which is registered against them for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section 22 (c) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, 'NDPS Act'). The petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.09.2023. B.A.No.3405/2024 is filed by the first accused and B.A.No.1956/2024 is filed by the third accused. As the applications arise out of the same crime, they are consolidated, jointly heard, and are being disposed of by this common order. The first accused had filed an earlier application which was dismissed by this Court as per Annexure-2 order.

2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: around 13 hours on 28.09.2023, the accused were found in conscious possession of 100.1 grams of MDMA which was being transported in a motor car bearing No.KL-11-BE-7585 through Meenchanda- Cheruvannur road. The accused had conspired to deal with the contraband article in violation of the provisions of the Act. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3. Heard; Sri.M.Devesh and Sri. Vinay M.V., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that there is a change of circumstances subsequent to the passing of Annexure-2 order because the Investigating Officer has not filed the final report even after the lapse of 180 days. It was contended that although a final report was filed on 04.04.2024, the same was returned to the Investigating Officer as it was defective. But, even after the lapse of four months, the final report has not been re-filed. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on statutory bail. Hence, the applications may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the applications. She submitted that the Investigating Officer had filed the final report before the expiry of 180 days. However, the Special Court directed the Investigating Officer to conduct a further investigation. It is learnt that the additional report has been filed on 30.07.2024. Therefore, the above contention is unsustainable in law. In addition to the same, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court K. Veeraswami v. Union of India & Ors. [(1991) 3 SCC 655], the above contention is untenable. There is no fundamental defect in the final report. Actually, the Trial Court has specifically observed in paragraph No.15 of Annexure-3 that there is no fundamental defect in the final report, but the Trial Court found that the specific details of the driver of the car and the conspiracy angle were not properly investigated. Therefore, the Trial Court directed the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation in respect of the conspiracy angle. Thus, it can never be contended that the final report was not filed within the stipulated statutory time period. The accused had earlier filed B.A.Nos.256/2024 & 207/2024 to enlarge them on bail. By Annexure-2 order, this Court, after elaborately considering the rival contentions made across the Bar and finding that the contraband involved in the case is of a commercial quantity, found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused have committed the above offences and they have failed to dilute the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Consequently, this Court dismissed the applications by Annexure-2 order. There is no change of circumstances warranting the filing of fresh applications. The applications are devoid of any merits and are only to be dismissed.

6. The prosecution allegation is that, the accused were found in conscious possession of 100.1 grams of MDMA, which was being transported in a car. The case of the prosecution was that the accuse