BOMBAY HIGH COURT
A.S. Gadkari and Shyam C. Chandak, JJ.
Razi Ahmed Khan and Ors. – Appellants
versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.883 of 2023 with Criminal Appeal No.1151 of 2023 with Criminal Appeal No.206 of 2024
Decided on 11.6.2024
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Section 43-D(5) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 121A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail application – FIR is self-eloquent – There is more than sufficient material available on record in the form of statements of witnesses and documents seized from electronic devices of accused persons that they indulged into activity of inciting like minded people to join them to overawe Government by use of criminal force – They also conspired to transform India into an Islamic country by 2047 – They are not only propagators but actively intending to implement Vision-2047 document of their organization – There are statements of more than 20 witnesses, multiple conversations between members of Association inter-se and overwhelming electronic evidence to demonstrate that Appellants in connivance with other accused persons have systematically undertaken activities which are detrimental to interest and integrity of nation – There is more than sufficient material available on record to prima facie show involvement of Appellants in the present crime to apply Section 121-A of IPC – If Appellants are released on bail there is every possibility that they may tamper with evidence at this crucial stage – Impugned Orders affirmed. (Paras 10, 11, 13, 14 and 14.1)
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
A.S. Gadkari, J.—All the above mentioned Appeals are being decided together by this common Judgment, as they arise from same Crime Number, same set of facts and also involve common questions of law.
1.1. The common thread in all these Appeals is a prayer for bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) in Special Sessions Case No.24 of 2023, pending on the file of learned Special Judge, Nashik, arising out of C.R. No.20 of 2021, registered with Anti-Terrorist Squad Police Station, Kalachowki, Mumbai, under Sections 121-A, 153-A, 120-B, 109, 116, 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘I.P.C.’) and under Section 13(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, (for short, “the UAP Act”).
1.2. The Appellants are original Accused Nos.3, 2 and 6 respectively as per the charge-sheet in the said crime. For the sake of brevity, the Appellants hereinafter will be referred to as per their original status in the charge-sheet i.e. Accused Nos.3, 2 and 6.
2. The Appellant, Accused No.3 has impugned Order dated 13 th April, 2023 passed below Exh-1 in Criminal Bail Application No.324 of 2023, by the learned Special Judge, Nashik, rejecting his Application for bail.
2.1. The Appellant, Accused No.2 has impugned Order dated 24th August, 2023 passed below Exh-6 in Special (ATS) Case No.24 of 2023, by the learned Special Judge, Nashik, rejecting his Application for bail.
2.2. The Appellant, Accused No.6 has impugned Order dated 10th November, 2023 passed below Exh-11 in Special (ATS) Case No.24 of 2023, by the learned Special Judge, Nashik, rejecting his Application for bail.
3. Heard Mr. Mundargi, learned senior counsel for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.883 of 2023, Mr. Desai, learned senior counsel for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1151 of 2023, Mr. Kazi, learned Advocate for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.206 of 2024 and Mrs. Takalkar, learned A.P.P. for Respondent-State in all Appeals. Perused entire record produced before us and Affidavits-in-Reply filed by the Investigating Officers dated 24th November, 2023, 17th January, 2024 and 19th March, 2024 respectively.
4. Record reveals that, the first information report herein is filed by Shri. Gurudev G. Kale, Assistant Police Inspector, A.T.S., Nashik on 22 nd September, 2022. It is the prosecution case that, on 14th June, 2022 between 6.15 p.m. to 7.15 p.m., an inaugural ceremony of the new office of the Popular Front of India (PFI) situated in front of Jameatus Swalehat Madarsa, Tension Chowk, Azad Nagar, Malegaon took place. At the said occasion, the Accused No.1 and other 15 to 20 persons were present. After the opening ceremony of the said office was over, a secrete meeting of the members of PFI was convened. In the said meeting, the Accused No.1 and other persons highlighted various atrocities being committed against the Muslim Community in Indian, including the incidents of mob-lynching. It was emphasized therein that, the need of unity of Muslim Community to wage a war against the country by adopting any mode. The Accused No.1 was the head of PFI, Malegaon and instigated the persons present in the said meeting to motivate people from Muslim Community with similar thinking, to enhance communication with like minded persons from the Community to create atmosphere against the Government of India and flared the emotions of people from Muslim Community. He also issued a ‘Fatwa’ and told to kill any person who would speak against the Muslim religion. He and other Accused instigated the Muslim Community to have hatred against the people of other religions so as to cause disturbance in the country. Accused No.1 also instigated Accused Nos.2 to 5 prompting them to enhance communication with people from their community to inspire them to wage a war in the State of Maharashtra and against the Government of India. The Accused No.1 attracts youngsters having extremist ideology from Muslim Community and is brainwashing them to wipe out thei
Mohd. Jamiludin Nasir vs. State of West Bengal
Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Bail cannot be granted to terror activists.
The judgment establishes that serious allegations of conspiracy to wage war against the state, supported by substantial evidence, warrant the denial of bail, particularly when there is a risk of evid....
Prolonged pre-trial detention without trial may necessitate bail, especially when trial completion is unlikely, balancing the severity of allegations with the accused's rights under Article 21.
Under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, bail is to be denied where prima facie evidence substantiates serious accusations of terrorism, while less compelling evidence may warrant bail.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without trial completion justifies bail, emphasizing constitutional rights over statutory restrictions.
The court may grant bail despite statutory restrictions under the UAPA if the accused's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is infringed due to prolonged detention without reasonable trial prosp....
The court emphasized that constitutional rights to liberty prevail when trials are unduly prolonged, allowing bail despite serious terrorism charges.
(1) Grant of bail – Question of discarding material or document at stage of considering bail application of accused on the ground of being not reliable or inadmissible in evidence, is not permissible....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.