To balance the verdict and to ensure the order does not cause prejudice to the accused in any manner, the bench led by Justice M R Shah granted protection from arrest to the accused for a period of 5 weeks, subject to their cooperation with the investigation, as an interim arrangement till the High Court finally decides the matter.

OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE VERDICT

The bench in its verdict said: “All the appeals are allowed. For the reasons stated above, the impugned judgments are hereby quashed and set aside. All the anticipatory bail applications are remitted to the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove. However, it is observed that this Court has not observed any thing on the merits of the case of either of the parties and it is ultimately for the High Court to pass appropriate order. We request the High Court to finally decide and dispose of the anticipatory bail applications at the earliest, but preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of these orders. The Registry of the High Court is directed to notify all these anticipatory bail applications before the concerned bench taking up such matters within a period of one week from today. Meantime, by way of an interim arrangement, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the CBI before the High Court, it is directed that for a period of five weeks from today, i.e till the bail applications are finally decided by the High Court upon remand, the respondent accused shall not be arrested subject to their cooperation with the investigation”

THE GROUNDS

During the hearing, SC said it was also of the view that remarks in Justice Jain committee report was not considered while grant of anticipatory bail to accused. CBI also argued that Justice Jain committee after a fact-finding enquiry submitted its report before this court in march finding that in the light of the materials available and statements recorded an in-depth investigation by a central agency is needed to be conducted to unearth the entire conspiracy/ nexus to falsely implicate Nambi Narayanan

SC was also of the view that HC had not considered the allegations and charges against each accused and passed a general order granting anticipatory bail. The SC bench was also of the view that the HC had not gone into the material available with the investigating agencies

WHAT DID THE CBI ARGUE?

CBI argued that officers of IB, who had nothing to do with investigation, took 4 scientists into custody and tortured them. CBI argued that because of them being taken into custody, the invention of the technology for cryogenic rocket engine project got delayed by 20 years.

Remember CBI had also brought in Pakistan angle in Kerala High Court while opposing their anticipatory bail plea CBI had said foreign intelligence agencies like ISI, Pakistan, had plotted to derail development of cryogenic technology in India and the accused needed to be interrogated to find out the brain behind the operation.

CBI argued that the accused may have acted at the behest of some foreign power and their custodial interrogation is required.

CBI says HC failed to appreciate that the case was at nascent stage and not anticipatory bail BUT custodial interrogation should have been allowed. CBI said since the offence was committed more than a quarter of century back, investigating agency will have to undertake an uphill task to unearth the truth.