Kerala High Court
Ashif vs Union Of India on 8 April, 2025
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Crl.Appeal Nos.259,275 & 2271/2024 1
2025:KER:30291
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 259 OF 2024
(CRIME NO.2/2023 OF NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY KOCHI,
Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.01.2024 IN CRMP
8/2024 IN RC NO.2 OF 2023 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF NIA
CASES,ERNAKULAM)
APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:
ASHIF
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O KHADEEJA, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, KETTUNGAL,
VENKIDANGU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680510
BY ADVS.
M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER
E.A.HARIS
MUHAMMED YASIL
Crl.Appeal Nos.259,275 & 2271/2024 2
2025:KER:30291
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NATIONAL
INVESTIGATION AGENCY, KOCHI, PIN - 682020
ASGI FOR NIA ADV. A.R.L.SUNDARESEN
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.04.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.A.259/2024, 275/2024 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 8/4/2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.Appeal Nos.259,275 & 2271/2024 3
2025:KER:30291
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 275 OF 2024
(CRIME NO.2/2023 OF NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY KOCHI,
Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.01.2024 IN CRMP
NO.34/2024 IN SC NO.1 OF 2024 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF
NIA CASES,ERNAKULAM)
APPELLANT/PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
ASHIF
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O KHADEEJA, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, KETTUNGAL,
VENKIDANGU, THRISSUR., PIN - 680510
BY ADVS.
M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER
E.A.HARIS
MUHAMMED YASIL
Crl.Appeal Nos.259,275 & 2271/2024 4
2025:KER:30291
RESPONDENT/S:
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NATIONAL
INVESTIGATION AGENCY, KOCHI, PIN - 682020
ASGI FOR NIA ADV. A.R.L.SUNDARESEN
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.04.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.A.259/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 8/4/2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Appeal Nos.259,275 & 2271/2024 5
2025:KER:30291
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 2271 OF 2024
(CRIME NO.2/2023 OF NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY KOCHI,
Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.09.2024 IN CRMP
NO.219/2024 IN SC NO.1 OF 2024 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL
OF NIA CASES,ERNAKULAM)
APPELLANT/PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
ASHIF
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O KHADEEJA, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, KETTUNGAL,
VENKIDANGU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680510
BY ADVS.
E.A.HARIS
M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER
MUHAMMED YASIL
FATHIMA SHERIN
Crl.Appeal Nos.259,275 & 2271/2024 6
2025:KER:30291
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINT:
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NATIONAL
INVESTIGATION AGENCY, KOCHI, PIN - 682020
ASGI FOR NIA ADV. A.R.L.SUNDARESEN
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.04.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.A.259/2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 8/4/2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Appeal Nos.259,275 & 2271/2024 7
2025:KER:30291
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
&
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ.
-------------------------------------.
Crl.A. Nos.259,275 & 2271 of 2024
---------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of April 2025
COMMON JUDGMENT
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J
All these appeals have been filed by the first accused in SC
No.1/2024 (arising out of RC No.2/2023/NIA/KOC) on the files
of the Special Court for the trial of NIA cases, Ernakulam.
2. Criminal Appeal No.259/2024 is filed challenging the
order dated 11/1/2024 in Crl.M.P.No.8/2024, Criminal Appeal
275/2024 is filed challenging the order dated 19/1/2024 in
Crl.M.P.No.34/2024 and Criminal Appeal No.2271/2024 is filed
challenging the order dated 20/9/2024 in Crl.M.P.No.219/2024
passed by the Special Court for the trial of NIA cases,
Ernakulam.
2025:KER:30291
3. Criminal M.P.No.8/2024 is an application filed by the
prosecution seeking permission for providing digital copies of
documents instead of paper copies along with the charge sheet.
The said application was allowed by the trial court as per order
dated 11/1/2024.
4. Crl.M.P.No.34/2024 is an application filed by the first
accused seeking default bail. The said application was dismissed
by the trial court on 19/1/2024.
5. Crl.M.P.No.219/2024 is an application filed by the first
accused seeking regular bail. The same was also dismissed by
the trial court on 20/9/2024.
6. The prosecution case is that the first accused, being an
active arms and physically trained cadre of PFI and having
involved in the murder of a prominent RSS/BJP leader in 2008,
got acquainted with the second accused who is associated with
India Fraternity Forum while in Qatar during 2012. Thereafter,
2025:KER:30291
he willingly subscribed to violent jihadi ideologies and conspired
with the second accused to join ISIS. When it did not
materialise, they conspired to return to India and establish an
ISIS module in Kerala and recruit gullible youths to the module.
After returning to India in 2017, the first accused established
the module and recruited the third accused and attempted to
recruit the 4th accused to the module. The first and second
accused also conspired and committed crimes to raise funds for
pro-ISIS activities along with the third accused and conducted
recce of Hindu Temples and prominent persons of other
communities for targeting, as well as looting them. They also
propagated ISIS ideology through social media and other
platforms. Hence, the prosecution alleges that the first accused
has committed the offences punishable under Section 120B of
IPC and Sections 20,38 & 39 of The Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act,1967(hereinafter referred to as 'the UAPA' for
short).
2025:KER:30291
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant/first accused
Adv.E.A.Haris contended that Crl.M.P.No.8/2024 was filed by the
prosecution on 5/1/2024 and the same was allowed by the trial
court on 11/1/2024, without hearing the appellant. He
submitted that the appellant, being in jail, cannot be expected
to defend his case effectively without having been served a
physical copy of the final report and other relevant documents,
as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. He submitted that
even though as per the order of the trial court the accused was
handed over a soft copy of these documents in a pen drive on
22/1/2024, without any authentication, no purpose has been
served since the appellant, who is in jail, has not been provided
with computers or other gadgets to open the pen drive and go
through the documents. He argued that the afore order passed
by the trial court permitting the prosecution to serve the
documents in electronic form, has caused considerable prejudice
to the appellant resulting in denial of fair trial. He further
2025:KER:30291
contended that the appellant has filed Crl.M.P.No.34/2024 on
15/1/2024 and the final report was filed on 12/1/2024 in
physical form, without sufficient copies of the same for serving
them to the accused. He argued that the final report thus filed
was defective and the trial court erred in not complying with
Rules 19 and Rule 68 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. Hence,
he submitted that as on 19/1/2024, when his application for
default bail was considered, there was no valid charge sheet in
terms of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the trial court
ought to have allowed his application. He also relied on the
decision in Achpal @ Ramswaroop and Another v. State of
Rajasthan [2018 (4) KLT 664] to support his afore
contention. He submitted that, even if it is otherwise so, this is
a fit case to grant regular bail to the appellant and the trial
court has failed to take note of the relevant factors while
considering such an application. He also submitted that the
appellant is in custody from 18/7/2023 and he has been
2025:KER:30291
charged for committing the offences punishable under Sections
20, 38 & 39 of UAPA and there is no allegation that the
appellant has perpetrated any crime. It is only alleged that the
appellant has conspired and attempted to commit terrorist act
and has accumulated money for the activities, by committing
robbery. He, by relying on the decisions in Pankaj Bansal v.
Union of India [2023 KHC 6887], Prabir Purkayastha v.
State(NCT of Delhi) [2024 KHC 6286] and Vihaan Kumar
v. State of Haryana [2025 KHC OnLine 6116] further
contended that, since the appellant has been kept in custody
from 18/7/2023 onwards, even without informing him about the
grounds of arrest in writing, the arrest itself is illegal as it
violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution. He would also argue
that further investigation in this case is in progress even today,
and there is no likelihood of the trial commencing in near future.
He contended that, as of now, the prosecution has arrayed 145
witnesses from its side and in such circumstances, in all
2025:KER:30291
probabilities, there will be considerable delay in completing the
trial. He relied on the decisions in Ankur Chaudhary v. State
of Madhya Pradesh[2024 SCC OnLine SC 2730], Mohd
Muslim @ Hussain v. State(Nct of Delhi) [AIR 2023 SC
1648], Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra
(2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693), Union of India v. K.A.Najeeb
[(2021) 3 SCC 713] and Athar Parwez v. Union of India
(2024 KHC 6719) to contend that undue delay in trial is a
valid ground for granting bail even in cases involving UAPA since
Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA is comparatively less stringent than
Section 37 of NDPS Act. He also, by relying on Section 6 of
National Investigation Agency Act,2008 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the NIA Act' for short) and especially clause (5) argued that
the Agency does not have the power to register an FIR directly
except in cases mentioned in clause (8) and hence, the entire
prosecution against the appellant has to fail. He would also
submit that the 5th accused, who stands on the very same
2025:KER:30291
footing as that of the appellant, has been granted bail by the
Apex Court after considering his long incarceration for a period
of 11 months.
8. Per contra, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of
India Adv.Sundaresan would contend that the serving of the
final report and the documents to the first accused in the form
of soft copies was only for the purpose of convenience, since
the charge sheet and the documents produced are voluminous
in nature. He contended that the appellant has no right to be
heard at the time of considering Crl.M.P.No.8/2024 by the trial
court, since cognizance has not been taken at that time and
since, the work done by the trial court is only administrative in
nature. He further submitted that filing of charge sheet is one
thing and serving the copies to the accused, which is the duty of
the court, is another thing. The time prescribed by the statute is
only for the purpose of completing the investigation and laying
2025:KER:30291
charge, and has nothing to do with tendering copies. He, by
relying on the decisions in P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep v.
State of Kerala & Anr [(2020) 9 SCC 161], CBI v. Kapil
Wadhawan [(2024) 3 SCC 734] and Serious Fraud
Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi & Ors.[(2023) 15 SCC
311] contended that the Magistrate's duty under Section 207 is
in the nature of administrative work only and the right to default
bail gets extinguished on filing of the charge sheet within the
prescribed time. According to the learned Counsel, non
supplying of sufficient copies of the final report cannot lead to a
finding that there is no sufficient compliance of Section 167(2)
Cr.P.C. He also argued that the decision in Pankaj Bansal's case
(cited supra) has only prospective effect, as clarified in the
decision in Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement
(2023 SCC OnLine SC 1682) and, therefore, in the present
case the arrest being made on 18/7/2023, much prior to the
decision in Pankaj Bansal's case, the principles enunciated
2025:KER:30291
therein will not be applicable. Regarding the application of the
first accused seeking regular bail, he submitted that the rigours
of Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA gets attracted and there are
materials to show that the accusation against the first accused
is prima facie true. He relied on the decisions in Gurwinder
Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr [(2024) 5 SCC 403],
Mazhar Khan v. NIA [(2024) 6 SCC 627] and NIA v.
Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali [(2019) 5 SCC 1] and
contended that as per the provisions of Section 43 -D(5) of the
UAPA, for granting bail, the court must be satisfied that there
are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations
against the accused are prima facie are not true. He would
submit that in the light of the charge sheet filed and the
evidence on record, there are no grounds to release the
appellant on bail. As regards the contention regarding the
competency of NIA to register FIR suo motu and investigate, the
learned Counsel relied on the decision in Ali K @ Ragam Ali v.
2025:KER:30291
Union of India (2023 KHC 816) and contended that Section
6(5) confers powers on the Central Government to direct the
NIA to investigate the scheduled offence, which is brought to its
notice even if the offence in respect of which no case has been
registered. Hence, he prayed that these appeals may be
dismissed.
9. Considering the rival contentions and the issues to be
decided, we are of the view that it would be apt to first consider
the Crl.Appeal No. 2271/2024,which arises from the dismissal of
a petition seeking regular bail. The main contention raised by
the learned counsel for the appellant, by relying on the decision
in Pankaj Bansal's case (cited supra), is that since the grounds
of arrest of the appellant have not been furnished to him in
writing, the same is violative of Article 22(1) of the Constitution
of India, vitiating his arrest. In the present case, it is an
admitted fact that the grounds of arrest have not been
2025:KER:30291
intimated to the appellant in writing. It is true that the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Pankaj Bansal's case(cited supra) has held that
unless the grounds of arrest are intimated to the accused in
writing, it will vitiate the arrest itself. But, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has also held that it would only be necessary 'henceforth'
meaning thereby that the compliance is required only in future
cases. The afore view has also been clarified by the Apex Court
in Ram Kishor Arora's case (cited supra) wherein, it specifically
held that the dictum in Pankaj Bansal's case(cited supra) will
only have a prospective effect. It is not in dispute that the
appellant has been arrested in this case on 18/7/2023. The
dictum in Pankaj Bansal's case has been pronounced by the
Apex Court only on 3/10/2023. If so, we have no hesitation to
find that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the
judgment in Pankaj Bansal's case (cited supra). The decisions
relied on by the appellant in Prabir's case (cited supra) and
Vihaan Kumar's case (cited supra) also will not help since in
2025:KER:30291
those cases, the date of arrest of the accused is much after the
date of pronouncing the judgment in Pankaj Bansal's case.
10. Coming to the next contention of the appellant, by
relying on the decisions in Najeeb's case, Javed Gulam's case
and Athar Parvez's case (all cited supra), that since he has
undergone incarceration for a significant period of time and
there is no possibility of trial being conducted in near future, he
is entitled to be released on bail, we are of the view that there is
some merit in it. It is an admitted fact that the appellant has
been arrested as early as on 18/7/2023 and is in custody
therefrom. It is also an admitted fact that as of today, charge
has not been framed against him and further investigation is still
going on in this case. It is true that initially, the final report was
filed in this case on 12/1/2024. But, the records show that an
order for further investigation is seen issued by the Trial Court
on 27/3/2024 based on an application filed by the prosecution
2025:KER:30291
as Crl.M.P.No.76/2024. Even as per the charge sheet initially
filed, the prosecution has cited 147 witnesses, and 161
documents and 55 material objects have been produced to
substantiate the charge against the accused. In the afore
circumstances, we have no hesitation in our mind that the trial
in this case is not likely to commence and end in near future. In
the decision in Najeeb's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while
considering the bail application of an accused involved in a case
charged inter alia under Sections 16,18,19 & 20 of UAPA Act
and who has undergone a long period of incarceration, held as
follows:
"17.It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory
restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not
oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on
grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed,
both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers
exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well
harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the
2025:KER:30291
courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy
against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will
melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being
completed within a reasonable time and the period of
incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial
part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would
safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section
43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial
of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to
speedy trial".
While holding so, the court also observed and considered the
fact that Section 43-D(5) of UAPA is comparatively less stringent
than Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
11. Subsequently, in another decision in Shoma Kanti
Sen v. State of Maharashtra (2024 KHC 6182), the Apex
Court, by relying on the decision in Najeeb's case and rejecting
the contentions of the prosecution that unless the conditions
specified in Section 43-D(5) of UAPA are fulfilled the accused is
not liable to be enlarged on bail, held thus:
2025:KER:30291
"38. Relying on this judgement, Mr. Nataraj, submits that
bail is not a fundamental right. Secondly, to be entitled to
be enlarged on bail, an accused charged with offences
enumerated in Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act, must
fulfill the conditions specified in S.43D(5) thereof. We do
not accept the first part of this submission. This Court has
already accepted right of an accused under the said
offences of the 1967 Act to be enlarged on bail founding
such right on Art.21 of the Constitution of India. This was in
the case of Najeeb(supra), and in that judgment, long
period of incarceration was held to be a valid ground to
enlarge an accused on bail in spite of the bail -restricting
provision of S.43D(5) of the 1967 Act. Pre-conviction
detention is necessary to collect evidence (at the
investigation stage), to maintain purity in the course of trial
and also to prevent an accused from being fugitive from
justice. Such detention is also necessary to prevent further
commission of offence by the same accused. Depending on
gravity and seriousness of the offence alleged to have been
committed by an accused, detention before conclusion of
trial at the investigation and post - chargesheet stage has
the sanction of law broadly on these reasonings. But any
2025:KER:30291
form of deprival of liberty results in breach of Art.21 of the
Constitution of India and must be justified on the ground of
being reasonable, following a just and fair procedure and
such deprival must be proportionate in the facts of a given
case. These would be the overarching principles which the
law Courts would have to apply while testing prosecution's
plea of pre - trial detention, both at investigation and post -
chargesheet stage".
The same principle was also followed by the Apex Court in Javed
Gulam Nabi Shaikh's case and Athar Parwez' case (all cited
supra). In the decision in Athar Parwez's case, the Apex Court
after discussing Najeeb's case, went on to observe as follows:
"At the initial stage, the legislative policy needs to be
appreciated and followed by the Courts. Keeping the
statutory provisions in mind but with the passage of time
the effect of that statutory provision would in fact have to
be diluted giving way to the mandate of Part III of the
Constitution where the accused as of now is not a convict
and is facing the charges. Constitutional right of speedy
trial in such circumstances will have precedence over the
2025:KER:30291
bar/strict provisions of the statute and cannot be made
the sole reason for denial of bail. Therefore, the period of
incarceration of an accused could also be a relevant factor
to be considered by the constitutional courts not to be
merely governed by the statutory provisions."
In the light of the above settled principles of law laid down by
the Apex Court and considering the facts and circumstances of
this case as narrated afore, we are of the view that this is a fit
case where the appellant, who is undergoing incarceration since
18/7/2023, can be released on bail. At this juncture, we will
also take note of the fact that the 5th accused in this case, who
was charged under Section 19 of UAPA and Section 212 of IPC,
has already been granted bail by the Apex Court, after a period
of 11 months' incarceration, by taking into consideration the
fact that the trial is not likely to commence in near future.
12. Next we will consider the question raised in Crl.Appeal
No.259/2024. It is not in dispute that the appellant has not
2025:KER:30291
been served with physical copies of the final report and
documents, and was only served with digital copies of the same
on 22/1/2024. It is to be kept in mind that the appellant is not a
free bird and is one who is behind bars, from 18/7/2023
onwards. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has not
been provided with any computers or gadgets for the purpose of
deciphering the contents of the electronic records. There is no
case for anyone that such a facility is being provided by the jail
authorities to the appellant. If so, it can, without any doubt, be
stated that no purpose will be served in serving the charge
sheet and relevant documents to the appellant in digital form.
This means that the accused will be totally disabled not only
from understanding the contents of the charge levelled against
him and the materials relied on, but also from advicing his
lawyer in a proper perspective and effectively defending himself.
It is a settled law that furnishing of the documents to the
accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C is a facet of the right of the
2025:KER:30291
accused to fair trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Constitutional mandate and statutory rights given to the
accused place an implied obligation upon the prosecution to
make a fair disclosure of the documents relied on by it {See
Manu Sharma v. State(NCT of Delhi) [(2010) 6 SCC 1] &
Gopalkrishnan's case (cited supra)}. If the furnishing of
documents to the accused, who is behind bars, is in the manner
as narrated afore it cannot be stated that there is a fair
disclosure from the part of the prosecution. As stated earlier,
the accused, who is behind bars, will not be able to gather the
details of the documents so supplied and defend himself,
resulting in his right to fair trial being fettered. Hence, we find
that the appellant is entitled to get a physical copy of the final
report and the relevant documents, under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
13. In the light of our findings in Crl.Appeal No.2271/2024,
the question to be considered in Crl.Appeal No.275/2024 fades
2025:KER:30291
into oblivion.
In the result:
1). Crl.Appeal No.2271/2024 is allowed as follows:
i) The appellant in Crl.A. No.2271/2024 shall be released on bail
on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the
satisfaction of the Special Court for the trial of NIA cases,
Ernakulam. It shall be open to the Special Court to impose such
additional conditions as it may deem fit and necessary in the
interest of justice. However, the conditions shall mandatorily
include the following:
a). If the appellant intends to leave the State of
Kerala, he shall obtain prior permission from
the Special Court.
b). If the appellant is in possession of any
passport, he shall surrender the same before
2025:KER:30291
the Special Court forthwith.
c). The appellant shall furnish to the
Investigating Officer of the NIA his complete
and current residential address, including any
changes thereto, and shall ensure that the
same remains updated at all times.
d).The appellant shall use only one mobile
number during the period of bail and shall
communicate the said number to the
Investigating Officer of the NIA. He shall remain
accessible on the said number throughout the
duration of bail and shall not, under any
circumstances, switch off or discard the device
associated with it without prior intimation.
e). The appellant shall report before the Station
House Officer of the Police Station having
jurisdiction over his place of residence on every
second and fourth Saturdays, without fail.
2025:KER:30291
f). The appellant shall not tamper with evidence
or attempt to influence or threaten any
witnesses in any manner.
g). The appellant shall not engage in or
associate with any activity that is similar to the
offence alleged against him or commit any
offence while on bail.
ii) In the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions or of
any other condition that may be imposed by the Special Court in
addition to the above, it shall be open to the prosecution to
move for cancellation of the bail granted to the appellant before
the Special Court, notwithstanding the fact that the bail was
granted by this Court. Upon such application being made, the
Special Court shall consider the same on its own merits and
pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
2). Crl.Appeal No.259/2024 is allowed in part as follows:
2025:KER:30291
i). The order dated 11/1/2024 in Crl.M.P.No.8/2024 in
R.C.No.2/2023/NIA/KOC passed by the Special Court for
trial of NIA cases, Ernakulam is set aside.
ii). The Trial Court is directed to supply the appellant/first
accused with a physical copy of the final report and
relevant documents as contemplated under Section 207
Cr.P.C.,forthwith.
3). Crl.Appeal No. 275/2024 will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
Judge
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
Judge
dpk
