IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935
## **CRL.A.No. 1321 of 2013 (C)**
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRLM.P.NO.366 OF 2013 OF THE SPECIAL COURT FOR NIA CASES, KERALA, ERRNAKULAM DATED 2.8.2013 IN SC 2/2013 (NIA), HYDERABAD.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4::
-------------------------------------------------------------
MASTIGUDDA ABOOBACKER S/O.UMMER (LATE), AKKARAMMEL HOUSE, HOSDURG KADPPURAM P.O., KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY HYDERABAD, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
BY SRI.M.AJAY, SPL. P.P FOR NIA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.12.2013, ALONG WITH CRA. 1552/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
## **K.T.SANKARAN & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.**
**---------------------------------------------------Crl.A. Nos.1321 & 1552 of 2013**
**---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of December, 2013**
## **JUDGMENT**
## **K.T.Sankaran, J.**
The appellant is the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.308 of 2013 and Crl.M.P.No.366 of 2013 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases, Kerala, Ernakulam (accused No.4 in S.C.No.2 of 2013 (NIA), Hyderabad). The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 120B, 489B and 489C read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The court below dismissed the application for bail (Crl.M.P.No.308 of 2013) filed by the appellant as per the order dated 26[th] June, 2013, which is under challenge in Crl.A.No.1552 of 2013. Later, the appellant filed another application for bail (Crl.M.P.No.366 of 2013), which was dismissed by the court below and it is under challenge in Crl.A.No.1321 of 2013. The court below dismissed the second bail application as per the order dated 2.8.2013 in which the earlier order was referred to and it was held that detailed consideration was made in that application and that
## **Crl.A. Nos.1321 & 1552 of 2013**
:: 2 ::
there is no change of circumstance to maintain the second application. After Crl.A.No.1321 of 2013 was filed, the appellant obtained copy of the order rejecting the first bail application and he filed Crl.A.No.1552 of 2013.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is the following: On 18.9.2011, while accused Nos.1 to 3 were travelling in a car, fake Indian Currency Notes amounting to `8,91,000/- were seized on interception of their car by the police. Crime No.211 of 2011 was registered by Thaliparamba Police for the offences under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The National Investigation Agency took over the investigation. During the course of investigation by NIA, it was revealed that accused Nos.1 to 3, in connivance with accused No.4 (appellant), conspired to procure fake Indian Currency Notes from UAE with the help of accused Nos.6 and 7, to smuggle the same to India for circulation within the country. It was alleged that fake Indian Currency Notes were brought to India with a view to spread financial terrorism to destabilise Indian economy and,
## **Crl.A. Nos.1321 & 1552 of 2013**
:: 3 ::
therefore, Sections 15 and 17 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act were also attracted.
3. The appellant was in Abu Dabi. NIA made a request through the Ministry of External Affairs to deport the appellant to India. The appellant came to India on 2.11.2012 and he was arrested at Delhi Airport. He was produced before court and he was remanded to judicial custody. The appellant continues to be in judicial custody.
4. NIA filed final report against accused Nos.1 to 4 on 29.4.2013 for the offences under Sections 120B, 489B and 489C read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. NIA made an application to the court below for permission to conduct further investigation in respect of the offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The court below granted permission and the further investigation is going on.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that accused Nos.1 to 3 and 7 were released on bail. The learned
## **Crl.A. Nos.1321 & 1552 of 2013**
:: 4 ::
Special Prosecutor for NIA submitted that bail was granted to those accused since final report was not filed within 180 days and that it was a default bail.
6. It is submitted by the learned Special Prosecutor that the first accused made a confession statement before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class I, Aluva, in which, he confessed that the fake Indian Currency was procured on paying `4,80,000/- to accused No.4 and the fake Indian Currency Notes were brought to India for circulation and distribution.
7. The statement of the first accused also would indicate that the fake Indian Currency Notes were brought to India as a part of financial terrorism and to destroy and destabilise the Indian economy.
8. The court below considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and held that it is not feasible to release the appellant on bail in spite of the fact that final report was filed in the case. The court below held that under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal
## **Crl.A. Nos.1321 & 1552 of 2013**
:: 5 ::
Procedure, an accused can be remanded to judicial custody even after the final report is filed. The court below also relied on the decision in **Muhammed Navas** v. **Station House Officer (2009 (3) KLT SN 64 (C.No.62)** , wherein it was held thus:
“It is true that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 7.11.2008. The question is not whether how long a person is in judicial custody, but whether it is feasible to release him on bail in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counting of the days of detention is not the criterion to be adopted in all cases. Facts and circumstances may vary in each case. Terrorism is an evil affecting the life and liberty of peace loving people. Terrorism has no barriers. It may strike anybody at any time. Any amount of precautionary measures and security arrangements may prove futile to combat terrorism. Fundamental right to individual liberty is certainly valuable. But when it is pitted against the life and liberty of the people at large, it becomes insignificant. Terrorism affects the growth of the nation; the resources of the nation have to be utilised for combating terrorism; it could be utilised in better ways for the betterment of the people. Offences against individuals are to be distinguished from offences affecting the nation and the people at large. Parameters to be adopted in the matter of considering the plea
## **Crl.A. Nos.1321 & 1552 of 2013**
:: 6 ::
for bail would also be different in these two types of cases. A strict approach in the latter category of cases is justified. Sympathy has no role in dealing with such cases.”
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant had undergone a surgery for heart ailment and that it may not be proper to detain him further. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that appropriate medical attention is being given to the appellant. The medical records were made available as provided by the jail authorities. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that as and when required all expert medical attention would be provided to the appellant. This submission is recorded.
10. The learned Special Prosecutor for NIA submitted that every endeavour will be made to complete the further investigation as against the appellant expeditiously and to file a final report within three months. This submission is recorded.
11. We are of the view that the court below did not commit any error in dismissing the applications as per the orders dated
## **Crl.A. Nos.1321 & 1552 of 2013**
:: 7 ::
26.6.2013 and 2.8.2013 which are challenged in Crl.A.Nos.1552 of 2013 and 1321 of 2013 respectively. We make it clear that if final report is not filed after completing the further investigation, within a period of three months, against the appellant, the appellant would be entitled to move the court below for bail, in which case, the court below will consider all the facts and circumstances and pass appropriate orders.
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeals are dismissed.
**(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge**
**(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge**
ahz/
