Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(Bom) 540

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RANJIT MORE & SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.
Pragya Singh Chandrapalsingh Thakur alias Sadhvi alias Swami Purnchetanand Giri – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.545 OF 2016 ALONG WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1440 OF 2016 & 71 OF 2017
Decided On : 25-04-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Avinash Gupta, Senior Advocate, i/by Mr. J.P. Mishra, a/w. Mr. Shyam Dewani, Mr. Prashant Muggu, Ms. Akanksha Helaskar, Mr. Aakash Gupta, Mr. V.S. Uberoi and Mr. Sujender Yadav, i/by M/s. Dewani Associates
For the Respondent: Mr. Anil C. Singh, A.S.G., a/w. Mr. S.D. Patil and Ms. Indrayani Deshmukh, Mr. J.P. Yagnik, A.P.P.,
For the Intervenor-Applicant : Mr. B.A. Desai, Senior Counsel, a/w. Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Mr. Sharif Shaikh, Mr. Wahab Khan, Mr. Ansar Tamboli, Ms. Naina, Shaikh, Mr. Shahid Ansari and Mr. Afzal

Important Point - Once it is held so then the benefit of bail cannot be withheld to the Appellant even if the offences alleged against her by ATS are grave and serious one.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 153A and 120B ; Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 ; Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 - Sections 3(1) (i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) and 3(5) -
Appellant is one of the twelve accused who are charge-sheeted by 'Anti Terrorist Squad for multitude of offences - If both the Reports of ATS and NIA are considered conjointly so far as the Appellant is concerned it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accusation made against her are prima facie true - Once it is held so then the benefit of bail cannot be withheld to the Appellant even if the offences alleged against her by ATS are grave and serious one - The Appellant in this case is a woman - Appellant is suffering from breast cancer - The medical report of the Appellant indicates that she has become infirm and cannot even walk without support - The medical certificate further shows that Appellant is being given treatment in Ayurvedic hospital - Ayurvedic Hospital cannot give proper treatment to the Appellant who is suffering from cancer - The Appellant has made out a case for bail under sub-section (5) of section 43D of the UAP Act - Appellant is directed to be released on bail.
Result – Appeal is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an Appeal preferred by original Accused No.1- Pragyasingh Thakur in M.C.O.C. Special Case No.1 of 2009 alias M.C.O.C. Special Case No.8 of 2011 alias N.I.A. Special Case No.1 of 2016, challenging the order dated 28th June 2016 passed by the Special Court, constituted under MCOC Act and NIA Act at Mumbai, thereby rejecting her application for bail (Exhibit No.3021).

2. Appellant is one of the twelve accused, who are charge-sheeted by 'Anti Terrorist Squad, Mumbai', (for short, “ATS”), under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 153A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, (for short, “IPC”), r/w. Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, (for short, “ES Act”), r/w. Sections 3, 5 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, (for short, “Arms Act”), r/w. Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, (for short, “UAP Act”), r/w. Sections 3(1) (i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) and 3(5) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, (for short, “MCOC Act”).

3. Brief facts of the case, which may be relevant for deciding this Appeal and which are summarized by Special Court in its order and which are otherwise also not controverted, can be stated as follows :-

On 29th September 2008, at about 9:35 pm, the bomb explosion took place at Malegaon, District Nashik, opposite Shakil Goods Transport Company, between Anjuman Chowk and Bhiku Chowk. The blast was caused on account of explosive device fitted in 'LML Freedom Motor-Cycle', bearing registration No.MH-15-P-4572. In the said blast, 6 innocent persons lost their lives and about 101 persons had received injuries of various nature, coupled with the damage caused to the property.

4. On the same night, at about 3 a.m., offence came to be registered in respect of this bomb-blast under C.R. No.130/2008 in Azad Nagar Police Station, Malegaon, Dist. Nashik, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 153A and 120B of IPC, r/w. Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of ES Act r/w. Sections 3, 5 and 25 of the Arms Act.

5. During the course of investigation, the exhibits collected from the place of offence were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Nashik, (for short, “FSL”), and as per the report of the FSL, those exhibits were found to be containing Cyclonite (RDX) and Ammonium Nitrate, which are used as highly explosive substances.

6. On 18th October 2008, the provisions of Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 23 of the UAP Act were invoked and investigation of the case was entrusted to Dy.S.P. (Head Quarter), Nashik Rural, as per the provisions of UAP Act. Thereafter, on 26th October 2008, A.C.P. and Chief Investigating Officer of ATS, Mumbai, took the charge of the investigation and the case was registered as C.R. No.18/2008. On 29th November 2008, the provisions of MCOC Act were also invoked. After carrying out due investigation, ATS filed Charge-Sheet in the Court on 20th September 2009 against eleven Accused, including the Appellant and sought permission to continue further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code. Accused No.12-Praveen Takkalki was arrested subsequent thereto and, accordingly, Supplementary Charge-Sheet came to be filed against him by ATS on 20th April 2011.

7. During the course of investigation, it was transpired that registration number of 'LML Freedom Motor-Cycle', used in the crime, was bogus. The Chassis and Engine Number of the said motorcycle were found to be erased. The parts of the motor-cycle were sent to the FSL. The FSL could successfully restore the engine number of the said motor-cycle and it was revealed that original registration number of the said motor-cycle was “GJ-05-BR-1920”. It was further transpired that Appellant is the registered owner of the said vehicle. Accordingly, Appellant was arrested on 23rd October 2008 at Mumbai along with Accused No.2-Shivnarayan Kalsangra and Accused No.3-Shyam Sahu.

8. As per the case of the ATS, as disclosed in the report under Section 173 of the Code file

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(Bom) 540

Important Point - Once it is held so then the benefit of bail cannot be withheld to the Appellant even if the offences alleged against her by ATS are grave and serious one.

Cases Referred (21)