IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933 CRL.A.No. 1322 of 2011() ------------------------ CRMP.312/2011 in S.C. 41 of 2011 (NIA) .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.11,22 & 23 ------------------------------------------------ 1. SIKKANDER ALI KHAN, S/O.PAREETH, AGED 28 YEARS, CHALIL HOUSE, PALLITHAZHAM, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. RASHEED P.M., AGED 30 YEARS, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PAINGOTTUR, KADAVUR VILLAGE. 3. MAHINKUTTY, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 35 YEARS, PALLARIMANGALAM KARA, POTHANIKKAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, REPRESENTED BY ITS STANDING COUNSEL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.AJAY, FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. .................................................... Crl.Appeal No. 1322 of 2011 ................................................... Dated this the 9th day of August , 2011 JUDGMENT V.Ramkumar J. In this appeal filed under Sec. 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 the appellants who are accused Nos. 11, 22 & 23 in S.C. No. 41/2011 now pending before the Special Court for trial of N.I.A. Cases, Kerala , Ernakulam, seek their enlargement on bail. 2. As per the impugned common order dated 14-07- 2011, the learned Special Judge had dismissed the common application filed as Crl.M.P. No. 312 of 2011 filed by 7 of the accused persons including the appellants. 3. Eventhough Adv. Sri. M. Ajay, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the N.I.A. submitted that there is no opposition to the request for bail by A22 and A23 on stringent Crl. Appeal No. 1322 of 2011 2 conditions, he however, submitted that when the matter was heard before the Special Court, the learned counsel appearing for all the 7 petitioners had pressed for bail only with regard to accused Nos. 14 and 19 (petitioners 3 and 5 therein) and the present appeal by the petitioners who did not invite an order on merits, is not maintainable. 4. We see force in the submission made by Sri. Ajay. No doubt, the Special Judge dismissed the application on behalf of the seven accused persons on merits. But having regard to the fact that bail application on behalf of accused Nos. 14 and 19 alone was pressed by the learned counsel appearing for the 7 petitioners before the court below and specially made mention of in paragraph 10 of the impugned order and there is no ground also taken in the memorandum of appeal that the said observation in the impugned order is wrong or that no such thing happened before the court below, we have to take the observation in the impugned order as the last word. Hence, in the absence of a request for an Crl. Appeal No. 1322 of 2011 3 order on merits, we do not consider it necessary to consider this appeal on merits. The petitioners are, accordingly, given liberty to move the Special Court again for bail and that court shall dispose of the application untrammeled by the observations on merits in the impugned order and also noticing the fact that there is no opposition with regard to the request for bail on behalf of A22 and A23. With the above observation, this appeal is disposed of. Dated this the th day of July, 2011. Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE Sd/-P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE ani/ /true copy/ P.S. to Judge