Prima facie evidence of complicity in the crime based on confessional statements and call records justifies rejection of bail appeal. Right to an expeditious trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

REVATI MOHITE DERE,J. - By this appeal preferred under Sec. 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, the appellant seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with C.R. No. 9 of 2012 registered with the Anti Terrorism Squad Police Station ('ATS'), Mumbai (Original C.R. No.168 of 2012, registered with the Deccan Police Station, Pune), for the alleged offences punishable under Ss. 307, 435 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code; Ss. 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act; Ss. 3 and 25 of the Arms Act; Ss. 16(1)(b), 18, 20, 23, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 as amended in 2008; and, under Ss. 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act ('MCOC Act').

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant seeks bail on merits, on parity, as well as, on the ground of delay in the commencement of the trial i.e. the appellant having undergone pre-trial detention of about 9 years and 9 months.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was working with accused No.3 - Firoz @Hamza Abdul Hameed Sayyed in his tailoring shop and that the appellant had no role to play in the commission of the offence. He submits that even the Sim Card allegedly purchased by the appellant was purchased at the behest of accused No.3 - Firoz @Hamza i.e. the appellant's employer. He submits that even the alleged chit/s found with the appellant containing 2 emails, was/were given by the accused No.3 - Firoz @Hamza to the appellant. He submits that infact, there was no good reason for the appellant to keep the said chit/s containing 2 emails for 3 months, after the arrest of accused No.3 - Firoz @Hamza and that the possibility of the police planting the chit/s could not be ruled out. He submits that even otherwise, nothing turns on the said chit/s, inasmuch as, there is no material brought on record, by the investigating agency to show that the said 2 emails were used or any mail was sent or exchanged between the accused. Learned counsel further submits that admittedly the appellant was not amongst the accused who planted the bombs at Deccan Gymkhana, even according to the prosecution. He further submits that there is no material to show that the appellant had the requisite knowledge, that the accused No.3 - Firoz @Hamza alongwith others had planned/conspired to plant bombs nor is there any material to show that the appellant was a part of the criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused to plant bombs. He submits that the appellant has no antecedents and that except for the present case, there is no case registered as against the appellant. According to Mr. Solkar, learned counsel for the appellant in the Delhi Case, which is registered against some of the accused, the appellant is shown as a witness in the said case. He submits that it is the prosecution case, that the said bomb blasts were planned to avenge the death of one Quatil Siddique, a member of a banned terrorist organization, Indian Mujahideen, who died in the jail custody on 8/6/2012. He submits that if this was the reason for planning the blasts i.e. to avenge the death of Quatil Siddique, who died on 8/6/2012, there was no reason for purchasing Sim Cards on bogus documents between the period January 2012 to August 2012 i.e. much prior to the death of Quatil Siddique. He submits that admittedly the bogus documents have not been prepared by the appellant and that the only allegation as against the appellant is that he purchased a Sim Card, which was at the behest of his employer i.e. accused No.3 - Firoz @Hamza.

4. Mr.Solkar further submits that the appellant is in custody since his arrest i.e. since 26/12/2012, for over 9 years. He submits that charge was framed in the said case on 25/5/2022 and that there is no prospect of the trial commencing in the immediate near future. He submits that even otherwise, the prosecution intends to examine 107 witnesses, which will take some time and as such the appellant be enlarged on bail