The judgment established that the prosecution must provide sufficient evidence to establish a defendant's involvement in a conspiracy and that doubts regarding evidence, such as recovery, can influence the court's decision on bail.

JUDGMENT :- Heard learned counsel for the appellant-original accused no.2 and learned P.P. for the State.

2. Appellant-Accused is one of the accused in POTA Special Case No.2 of 2003 pending before the Special Court, Mumbai. He filed an application for bail No.2 of 2004. There were two other Misc. Applications. All of them were heard and decided by the Special Court on 15.12.2004 and the application were rejected. Therefore, this Appeal under the provisions of The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'POTA Act')

3. The charge against the accused along with others, is that there was a criminal conspiracy to cause bomb blast, which, in fact, occurred at Mulund, Vile Parle and Mumbai Central pursuant to the conspiracy. According to Mr. Agarwal, the only evidence against the accused that is collected by the prosecution is confessional statement of the Court caused and recovery of AK-56. Mr. Agarwal contended that the provisions of bail in offence under POTA have been diluted by the Supreme Court in different judgments, which he relied upon Secondly, he also contended that the Supreme Court has now clearly laid down that the confessional statement of one accused cannot be used against other, and, therefore, that piece of evidence, heavily relied upon by the prosecution, cannot be used, at all, against the accused.

4. According to Mr. Agarwal the recovery of AK-56 at the instance of the accused has occurred much after three bomb blasts took place in Mumbai. There is no evidence of the use of the said weapon and nothing to show that the accused was the person who owned the said rifle Mere knowledge of keeping the AK rifle at a particular place, cannot at all be taken and shown as involvement of the accused in the conspiracy. Mr. Agarwal also contended that accused is a Graduate in Political Science. He has done his M.B.A. from Pune University. He was employed in a well known company. He hails from a respectable family, and, therefore, considering all the circumstances, he was entitled for bail.

5. On the other hand the learned PP contended that the offence against the accused and the others, are very serious. Three bomb blasts that took place at the above three places were in the nature of revenge and it was conspiracy to wage war against the Government.

Scores of people died and many were injured in three bomb blasts and looking to the entire nature of conspiracy, the accused did not deserve the bail, at all. According to the learned P.P. the accused has also taken part for training to Terrorists for use of AK 56. The recovery of AK 56 at the instance of the accused, was a very strong circumstance showing his involvement. As regards the confession of the co-accused against the appellant-accused, the learned P.P. contended in the circumstances and looking to the nature of the offence, the same was required to be taken into consideration. He therefore contended that there were no reasons to interfere with the order of the Special Judge. He also drew our attention to the affidavit of Nagesh Shivdas Lohar, Sr. Inspector of Police D.C.B. C.I.D. Crime Branch, filed in this Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2005 opposing the prayer for bail of the appellant-accused.

6. So far as confessional statement is concerned, it was a statement of one Anwar Ali Javed Ali Khan and Goolam Akbar Khotal. As per that statement, the present appellant accused had arranged shelter at Pune for the Slain Pakistani Terrorist Faizalkhan and had attended meeting with him along with another accused Saquib Nachan and others, and, this clearly shows the association of the accused with other terrorists.

7. Firstly, Mr. Agarwal, drew our attention to the provisions of Section 49, subsections (6), (7), (8) and (9), and, relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2004 SC 456: [2005 ALL MR (Cri) 2312 (S.C.)], People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs.Union of India. Our attention, in particular, was drawn to paragraph 67. The Supreme Court held th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document