Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1. This appeal is against an order dated 07.01.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.171 of 2013, by which the court below has refused an application for bail. The National Investigation Agency had opposed the application for bail of the appellant who is accused No.36, on different grounds.
2. In its sum and substance, the plea projected by the appellant before the court below in his bail application, were his personal grounds as to the family situation and also his assertion is that the allegations against him and his brother (accused No.35) are similar and accused No.35 was already granted bail. The court below, at that point of time, took note of the Public Prosecutor's objection that the owner of the building which was taken on rent by accused No.36, namely, Murugan (CW 64), was not examined. Public Prosecutor had also then pointed out that certain witnesses had been won over and there is every chance of the accused involving in winning over witnesses, if he is granted bail.
3. Public Prosecutor had also pointed out before the NIA Court that there is chance of the accused absconding, since he could not be apprehended either by the State Police or by the National Investigation Agency for almost three years, until he ultimately chose to surrender before the court below.
4. We may note that the impugned order was passed five months ago. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the National Investigation Agency, we think that the appellant may avail a further opportunity before the NIA Court, by making a fresh application, if there are changes in circumstances other than those reflected in the impugned order dated 07.01.2014, dismissing Crl.M.P.No.171/2013. We clarify that we have not expressed anything on the merits of any application in that regard and it is for the NIA Court to take note of all factors that may be relevant for consideration of any such application, in the event of one being filed. We also record the submission that day-to-day trial is proceeding and a large chunk of witnesses have already been examined except around 45 more persons to be examined; many of whom could be only of technical, to complete the prosecution link.
For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is dismissed giving liberty to the appellant (accused No.36 in S.C.No.1/2013 of the Special Court for the Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam) to file a fresh application for bail, if so advised, in the event of any change of circumstances being made out to the satisfaction of that court.
Sd/-
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) Sd/-
(P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE) //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE DG