Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1. This appeal by 21 persons, who were arrayed as accused in R.C.No.5 of 2013 of the NIA Court is against an order, by which the request of the prosecuting agency for extension of the remand period has been granted.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants quite in extenso and also learned Special Public Prosecutor for the NIA, we think that this appeal is not worthy of being considered as it is. We say so because, on the plea that the accused persons were entitled to bail in terms of Section 167 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, Crl.M.C. No.1005 of 2013 was filed before the Court of Session, Thalassery, where the matter was then pending. The Court of Session refused to grant bail. In doing so, as per the order dated 2.8.2013, the Court of Session had noted that the application was one for bail invoking Section 167(2), as also, Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said order dilates on the contents of Section 167 and the modifications to those provisions in terms of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. That order dated 2.8.2013, whereby bail as sought for by the accused persons was refused, has become final. That has not been appealed against. We think that the argument on behalf of the appellants that the appeal in fact would independently stand since it is against an order authorizing and extending remand, is not acceptable on the basis of the clear statutory provisions. As noted by the Honourable Supreme Court of India and laid down in Dr. Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujrat [(1996) SCC 2897], the accused person does not get an indefeasible right to claim a bail under Section 167(2) to be exercised at any point of time merely on the ground that final charge has not been laid. We look at that decision in the context of explanation (I) occurring after paragraph (c) among the provisos to Section 167(2) which says that for the avoidance of doubts, it is thereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail. In that context of the matter, all that the accused persons in this case can now pray for is to prosecute their request for bail after the final report was filed. We are told that separate appeals against dismissal of such bail applications are also pending and are listed today. Without prejudice to that, this appeal has to fail.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) Sd/-
(P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE) //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE DG