The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for prima facie evidence of guilt for bail consideration, the admissibility and evaluation of confessions, and the principle of guilt by association.

Heard Mr. Mubin Solkar, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard Mrs. V.S. Mhaispurkar, learned APP for the State. I have carefully gone through the application, and the annexures thereto.

2. The applicant is the Accused no.13 in MCOC Special Case No.4 of 2009, pending before the Special Court under the MCOC Act, at Mumbai. There are totally 23 accused in the said case.

3. The applicant is in custody since 4th October 2008. Admittedly, the trial has not commenced. Even the charge has not yet been framed.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case of the present applicant is on par with that of Accused no.9 Mohd Atik Mohd. Iqbal and Accused no.19 Afroze Firoz Mujawar @ Dastagir who were released on bail by this Court (Criminal Bail Application No.1047/11 decided on 24th September 2012 and Criminal Bail Application No.1608/12 decided on 4th December 2012, respectively). He, therefore, submits that on the same reasoning and on the same basis, the present applicant also deserves to be released on bail.

5. Smt. V.S. Mhaispurkar, learned APP submitted that the applicant is alleged to have committed serious offences, and does not deserve to be released on bail. She submitted that the case of the applicant is not on par with that of the accused no.9 and accused no.19 who have been released on bail. She has drawn my attention to the entire material against the applicant as is found in the charge-sheet.

6. While dealing with the applications for bail filed by the accused no.9 and accused no.19, the facts of the case were noticed and mentioned in the orders disposing of the said Bail Applications. It would be convenient to therefore mention the facts of the prosecution case here in the same manner.

7. The prosecution case in brief, may be stated as follows:

That, on 26 July 2008, a series of bomb blasts occurred in Ahmedabad, State of Gujarat, causing wide destruction, panic and loss of human life. The bombs-at least some of them - had been planted in motor cars. A few minutes prior to the blast, the television channels and media had received an email, purportedly from an Organization called as ‘Indian Mujahideen' warning that such a series of blasts would occur. The investigation into the case of the said bomb blasts was undertaken, and that has been carried out separately. Additionally, the Crime Branch of the Mumbai Police also started searching for the persons who had sent the so called 'terrorist email' and the persons who had stolen the cars in which bombs had been planted. It is this investigation which resulted in the arrest of the 23 persons, that has given rise to this case.

8. After investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed. It is in respect of the following offences:

Offences punishable under sections 295A IPC, 505(2) IPC, 507 IPC, 506(II) IPC, 120(B) IPC, 121, 122 and 286 of the IPC, offences punishable under section 25 read with section 3 of the Arms Act, offences punishable under the Explosives Act, and Explosive Substances Act 1908, the offences punishable under section 13(1)(a)(b), 16, 18, 19, and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity "the UAP Act") read with section 66 of the Information n Technology Act, and the offences punishable under section 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the MCOC Act, 1999.

9. It is not in dispute that the present case is not in respect of the bomb blasts, that took place in the city of Ahmedabad and Surat. It is also not in dispute that the case is also not in respect of the theft of the cars which were used for planting the bombs.

10. The case basically arises out of and because of the threatening email sent by the Organization 'Indian Mujahideen’. It is alleged that the said Organization had given a threat to the police and that it had outraged religious feelings, thus creating tension between Hindus and Muslims.

11. As regards the role of the applicant in the alleged offences, it is nobody's case that he is the person who had sent