SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 932

2011 (10) SCC 445
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. PANCHAL, H.L. GOKHALE
Sadhwi Pragyna Singh Thakur - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1845 OF 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5908 of 2010)
Decided On : September 23, 2011.

Headnote:A) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.22(1), Art.22(2), CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.160, S.163, S.167, S.167(2), S.41, S.437, S.439, S.44, S.46, S.50(a), S.57, EXPLOSIVES ACT : S.3, S.4, S.5, INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.153, S.302, S.307, S.324, S.427, MAHARASHTRA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIMES ACT : S.21(2)(b), S.21(4), UNLAWFUL ACTIVITES PREVENTION ACT : S.16, S.18, S.23:- This appeal arises out of the rejection of bail to the appellant by the High Court of Mahrashtra on grounds of violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India as well as for not filing the charge sheet within 90 days. The arguments of the counsel for the appellant accused who is alleged to be involved in Malagoan blast in Maharashtra, is mainly on the ground that she is alleged to have been taken into custody much earlier than when shown on record and hence in illegal custody which is in violation of Article 22. On facts held that the claim is not proved and as the appellant is now on judicial remand, she cannot be released on grounds of constitutional violation. Moreover it was held that these violations were not argued earlier in the lower courts. Hence the appeal is dismissed as no arguments were made on the ground of non-filing of charge sheet.

JUDGMENT

J.M. PANCHAL, J.

Leave granted. This appeal, by grant of special leave, challenges the judgment dated March 12, 2010 rendered by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application No. 3878 of 2009 by which prayer made by the appellant to enlarge her on bail on the ground of violation of the mandate of Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution of India and also on the ground of non-filing of charge sheet within 90 days as contemplated by Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is rejected.

2. The appellant claims to be the original resident of Surat. According to her she renounced material world and became Sadhwi in a religious ceremony, which was performed at Prayag, Uttar Pradesh and has settled herself at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, in the premises offered by one Agrawal family.

3. On September 29, 2008 a bomb blast took place at about 9.30 PM in Azad Nagar locality of Malegaon city, killing six persons and injuring more than hundred persons. With reference to the said bomb blast A.C.R. I-130/08 is registered with Azad Nagar Police Station on September 30, 2008 against unknown persons under Sections 302, 307, 324, 427 and 153 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act and Sections 16, 18 and 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1957. The initial investigations revealed that the explosion was carried out by making use of a two wheeler (scooter) on which the bombs were fitted and blasted with the help of a timer.

4. In October, 2008 the investigation of the case was transferred to Anti Terrorists Squad (ATS), Mumbai headed by ACP Mohan Kulkarni. The investigation by the ATS revealed that the scooter had its origin in Gujarat. The name of dealer to whom manufacturer had sold the same was traced. On October 7, 2008 team headed by P.I. Sawant went to Surat to contact the two wheeler dealer to ascertain the name of the person to whom the scooter was sold. After contacting the dealer, it was learnt that the two wheeler was sold by the dealer to the appellant and it was registered at R.T.O., Surat, and its registration number being GJ 5 JR 1920. It was also learnt that the appellant was staying in an Ashram at Jabalpur.

5. P.I. Sawant made a call to the appellant to know about her vehicle. The appellant told P.I. Sawant that she had sold the same long back. P.I. Sawant was not satisfied with the explanation given by the appellant. Therefore, he asked the appellant to come down to Surat. The appellant expressed her inability to go to Surat and asked P.I. Sawant to come to Jabalpur, but P.I. Sawant refused to do so and insisted that the appellant should come to Surat. Therefore, the appellant arrived at Surat Railway Station on October 10, 2008.

6. After reaching Surat Railway Station, the appellant straightaway went to the residence of her disciple Mr. Bhim Bhai. At about 10 AM P.I. Sawant met the appellant and revealed to the appellant that her two wheeler had been used in Malegaon blast and it was planted with explosives. The appellant told P.I. Sawant that she had sold the two wheeler in October, 2004 to one Mr. Sunil Joshi for Rs.24,000/- and she had also signed R.T.O. TT transfer form and had no control over the vehicle. P.I. Sawant repeatedly asked the appellant as to how that vehicle reached Malegaon and how it was used to blast bombs, to which the appellant could not give satisfactory answers. P.I. Sawant, therefore, disbelieved the appellant and asked her to accompany him to Mumbai.

7. Initially, P.I. Sawant had suggested to the appellant to take her father along with her, but the appellant had declined the said offer on the ground that physical condition of her father was not well. The appellant expressed her desire to be accompanied by her disciple and P.I. Sawant had granted the same. The appellant with her disciple Bhim Bhai reached Mumbai in the vehicle belonging to P.I. Sawant at 11.30 PM The case of the appellan
















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top