The sufficiency and reliability of evidence, including confessional statements and call detail records, are crucial in determining bail applications and the continuation of detention.

JUDGMENT :

V.G. Bisht, J.

1. This is an application by appellant-applicant for suspension of his sentence and enlargement on bail, pending the hearing and final disposal of the Appeal.

2. The appellant-applicant vide judgment and order dated 28/07/2016 passed by learned Special Judge, under MCOC Act, 1999, Mumbai, has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 10(a) 13, 18, 20, 23, 38 and 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA Act’ for short) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one year, under Section 6 of Explosive Substances Act and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case is that at the relevant time the Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) was conducting enquiries in the incidents of Nanded Bomb Blast Case, Explosives seized in Buldhana and the Bomb Blast which took place in the year 2002, 2003 in Marathwada. During the course of enquiry, they gathered intelligence on 09/05/2006 that some explosive and weapons were likely to be transported in the region. The teams of ATS were deputed along Manmad, Yevala, Aurangabad Road. At about 4:00 p.m. the team led by ACP Shengal which was at Yevala Junction on Yevala-Aurangabad road noticed one Tata Sumo jeep coming from Manmad and going towards Aurangabad. They tried to intercept the jeep but the jeep sped away. The police then chased the said jeep and intercepted it at Ghrushneshwar Temple, Taluka Khuldabad, Aurangabad. At that time, three occupants of the jeep, namely, Mohd. Amer Shakil Ahmed Shaikh (A-1), Abdul Azim Abdul Jamil Shaikh (A-4) and Sayyed Juber Sayyed Anwar Kadri (A-2) allegedly got down and started running away. However, A-1 was apprehended on the spot while other two made their escape good. A-1 and the Sumo jeep were taken to Khuldabad Police Station and a search of the said jeep was carried out and the huge amount of arms and ammunition were recovered. Accordingly, FIR came to be lodged.

4. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation various accused came to be arrested. Accused-Dr.Mohd. Sharif Shabbir Ahmed (A-9) revealed names of accused-Sayyed Jabiuddin @ Zabiuddin @ Jabi Sayyed Zabiuddin Ansari (A-22) and the appellant-applicant-Bilal Ahmed Abdul Razaq @ Bilal (A-10) on 17/05/2006. The appellant-applicant later on came to be arrested on 27/05/2006. Further investigation revealed the names of other accused and a charge-sheet came to be laid accordingly.

5. Heard Mr. Mubin Solkar, learned Counsel for the appellant applicant and Mr. Raja Thakare, Sr. Advocate, Spl. P.P. Perused the record.

6. Mr. Solkar, learned Counsel for the appellant-applicant, submits that the prosecution has placed reliance upon confession of co-accused No.1-Mohd. Amir Shakil Ahmed Shaikh and the evidence of PW No.37, regarding mobile phone of the applicant. Further, according to learned Counsel, there is no evidence of what-so-ever nature to show that the appellant-applicant was a part of any conspiracy allegedly created by the co-accused. No specific role is attributed to appellant-applicant. There are no antecedents. Since the appellant-applicant is in custody for more than 13 years and it will take some time to hear the Appeal finally, the appellant-applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the present Appeal by suspending his sentence.

7. Mr. Thakare, learned Spl. P.P., on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions and invited our attention to the confessional statement of co-accused, namely, Mohd. Amer Shakil Ahmed Shaikh (A-1) (Exh. 1757) which has been referred extensively by learned Special Judge and further invited our attention to the various paras, viz. 1663, 1664, 1665, 1666, 1667 and 1668. According to learned Spl. P.P., having regard to the nature of offence and there being overwhelming evidence proving the culpability of the appellant-applicant, this is not a fit case where he should be enlarged on bail.

8.