Bail cannot be denied where charge-sheets are silent as to who planted bombs and who exploded them.

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

On 18-05-2007, which is a Friday, prayers were being offered as usual, in Mecca Masjid, near Charminar, at Hyderabad. A blast took place around 1:25 p.m. Five persons died and many received injuries. Initially, the Station House Officer, Hussaini Alam Police Station registered Crime No.100/2007, alleging offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 120-B I.P.C and Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive and Substances Act against certain unknown persons. The same Police Station has registered crime No.107/2007 also in relation to the very incident.

Having regard to the gravity of the incident, the case was handed over for investigation, to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Thereupon, the CBI re-registered the case as R.C.No.5 (S)/2007, citing the same provisions of law. Charge-sheet was also filed by the CBI on 13-12-2010 against several accused, including Devendra Gupta alias Babby, alias Ramesh, and Lokesh Sharma alias Ajay Tiwari alias Ajay alias Kalu, accused Nos.3 and 4. No charge-sheet was filed against four more accused, viz., Sandeep V. Dange, Ramchandra Kalsangra, Sunil Joshi, Nabakumar Sarkar alias Asimanand. When the case was pending trial, the National Investigating Agency (NIA), the respondent herein, was constituted by the Government of India under the National Investigation Act, 2008 (for short ‘the NIA Act’). Further investigation was handed over to the said agency. The respondent, in turn, filed another charge sheet on 16-05-2011 alleging certain offences under various provisions of law, including the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, (for short ‘the Act’). There is some uncertainty as regards array of the accused.

The appellants herein i.e. accused Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., Devendra Gupta and Lokesh Sharma filed Criminal M.P.No.569 of 2012 in the Court of IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, the then Designated Court for NIA Cases, for bail, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. After hearing the parties, the trial Court granted bail through its order dated 26-11-2012.

The respondent filed Criminal Appeal No.1197 of 2012 under Section 21 of the NIA Act. A Division Bench of this Court took the view that the trial Court did not focus its attention on Section 43-D of the Act, and in particular, proviso to sub-section (6) thereof. To be precise, this Court pointed out that the bail could have been granted, if only the trial Court formed an opinion, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellants is prima facie not true. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the trial Court. The Court of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, since came to be designated as a Special Court for NIA cases. As a result, Special Sessions Case No.1 of 2011 was renumbered as Special Sessions Case No.3 of 2012 and Criminal M.P.No.569 of 2012 as Criminal M.P.No.1003 of 2013. After remand, the trial Court dismissed the bail petition through order dated 17-08-2013. Hence this appeal, under Section 21 of the NIA Act.

Sri N. Ramachander Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that the allegation against the appellants is based on imagination, and not a single person, who has any direct knowledge about the incident or the alleged involvement of the appellants; was cited in the list of witnesses. He contends that the allegation against the appellants is that they purchased a SIM card and cell phone, that too, in binami names, at different places and the cell phone, in turn, was used for explosion of the bomb. He submits that the case of the prosecution is a pigment of imagination, aimed at implicating persons associated with a particular organization, and in the process, totally improbable and unimaginable links are sought to be provided. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the very production of A-6, Asimanand, as an accused, in the instant case, by bringing him in a special flight; his alleged coming in touc