The right to a speedy trial and the insufficiency of evidence to establish the accused's involvement in the alleged offenses influenced the court's decision to grant bail to the appellant.

JUDGEMENT :

Revati Mohite Dere, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Learned Special Public Prosecutor waives notice for the respondent No. 1-National Investigating Agency (‘NIA’). Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice for the respondent No. 2–State.

3. By this appeal preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (‘NIA Act’), the appellant seeks quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 31st January 2019 passed by the learned Special Court in Bail Application (Exhibit 124) in NIA Special Case No. 3/2018, by which, the appellant’s application for bail came to be rejected and as such, seeks his enlargement on bail.

4. Mr. Solkar, learned counsel for the appellant seeks bail on merits, on the ground of parity as well as on the ground of delay in commencement of the trial.

5. As far as merits are concerned, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is absolutely no cogent, legitimate, admissible evidence qua the appellant to connect him with the alleged offence. He submitted that a perusal of the statements of four witnesses on which the prosecution places reliance, would only indicate that the accused persons including the appellant and the said witnesses would have discussions over threats to Islam and that actions of the ISIS and other issues like beef ban, communal riots, injustice to Muslims in Palestine, etc. would be discussed. He submitted that from a perusal of the said statements, it appears that there were only discussions between the accused and the witnesses and nothing more.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the other allegation as against the appellant is that the appellant showed the place where the said discussions took place. He submitted that the said circumstance cannot be said to be incriminating. He further submitted that the third circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is an Oath (Baith) allegedly written and signed by the appellant. He submitted that the said Oath (Baith) is easily available on the internet. Learned counsel denies that the appellant has either written or signed the said Oath (Baith). He further submitted that the prosecution had initially sent the said Oath (Baith) alongwith sample writings of the appellant and other accused to the State Examiner of Documents, Aurangabad, however, the same were returned, due to non-availability of the handwriting expert in Urdu and Arabic Language, as the said Oath (Baith) was written in Arabic/Urdu. He submitted that hence the said Oath (Baith) alongwith specimen handwriting/signatures of the appellant and other accused was sent to Chief Examiner of Documents (‘CFSL’), Hyderabad in 2016 and that the CFSL, Hyderabad had opined that for want of adequate specimen signatures/handwriting, opinion could not be given and as such gave its report to the investigating agency on 25th January 2017. He submitted that the investigating agency misled this Court and suppressed the said report despite being repeatedly asked by this Court to produce the same. Learned counsel relied on the orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid appeal. He further submitted that when the matter was pending before this Court and after this Court passed its order dated 17th June 2019, immediately on the next day i.e. on 18th June 2019, the NIA sent the Oath (Baith) alongwith very same specimen signatures/handwriting which was sent to the CFSL, Hyderabad, to the CFSL, Pune and within two weeks, obtained a report and tendered the same before this Court. He submitted that according to the CFSL, Pune, the handwriting/signature on the Oath (Baith) was that of the appellant.

7. Be that as it may, he submitted that even a perusal of the contents of the Oath (Baith) would show that there is nothing incriminating in the Oath (Baith). He submitted that the appellant has no antecedents and that