SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. PANCHAL, H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.
Pragyna Singh Thakur - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1845 of 2011
Decided on : 23-09-2011
Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 307, 324, 427 and 153 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 167 - Constitution of India - Article 22 - Explosive Substances Act - Sections 3, 4 and 5 - Unlawful Activities Act, 1957 - Sections 16, 18 and 23 - Challenges the judgment – Offence of Murder – Injury - According to her after half an hour her disciple i was also brought to the hospital and admission form of appellant and other documents were got signed by him case of appellant is that officer deposited money at hospital and disciple of appellant left hospital after which his whereabouts are not known to appellant – Held, At time when appellant moved for bail she was in judicial custody pursuant to orders of remand passed by learned CJM/Special Judge - Appellant did not challenge orders of remand and subsequent orders - In absence of challenge to these orders of remand passed by competent court appellant cannot be set at liberty on alleged plea that there was violation of Article 22(2) by police - Plea that Article 22(2) of Constitution was violated is based on averment by appellant that she was arrested on Factually this plea has not been found to be correct. The appellant was in fact arrested only on affidavit filed by on a careful perusal shows that the appellant was not arrested on - Prayer in said application did not ask for being set at liberty at all and only ask for an enquiry. Finding recorded by both Courts i.e. Trial Court and High Court is that appellant could not make out a case of her arrest - Having regard to totality of the facts and circumstances of case this Court is of opinion that question of violation of Article 22(2) does not arise - It was not a case where persons were in Jail after being remanded to custody by Judicial Magistrate. Similarly the decision in State of Bihar v. and another, AIR 1957 Supreme Court 389 was one relating to withdrawal from prosecution when learned Magistrate is required to apply his mind and not one relating - Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Panchal, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal, by grant of special leave, challenges the judgment dated March 12, 2010 rendered by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application No. 3878 of 2009 by which prayer made by the appellant to enlarge her on bail on the ground of violation of the mandate of Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution of India and also on the ground of non-filing of charge sheet within 90 days as contemplated by Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is rejected.
3. The appellant claims to be the original resident of Surat. According to her she renounced material world and became Sadhwi in a religious ceremony, which was performed at Prayag, Uttar Pradesh and has settled herself at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, in the premises offered by one Agrawal family.
On September 29, 2008 a bomb blast took place at about 9.30 PM in Azad Nagar locality of Malegaon city, killing six persons and injuring more than hundred persons. With reference to the said bomb blast A.C.R. I-130/08 is registered with Azad Nagar Police Station on September 30, 2008 against unknown persons under Sections 302, 307, 324, 427 and 153 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act and Sections 16, 18 and 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1957. The initial investigations revealed that the explosion was carried out by making use of a two wheeler (scooter) on which the bombs were fitted and blasted with the help of a timer.
In October, 2008 the investigation of the case was transferred to Anti Terrorists Squad (ATS), Mumbai headed by ACP Mohan Kulkarni. The investigation by the ATS revealed that the scooter had its origin in Gujarat. The name of dealer to whom manufacturer had sold the same was traced. On October 7, 2008 team headed by P.I. Sawant went to Surat to contact the two wheeler dealer to ascertain the name of the person to whom the scooter was sold. After contacting the dealer, it was learnt that the two wheeler was sold by the dealer to the appellant and it was registered at R.T.O., Surat, and its registration number being GJ 5 JR 1920. It was also learnt that the appellant was staying in an Ashram at Jabalpur. P.I. Sawant made a call to the appellant to know about her vehicle. The appellant told P.I. Sawant that she had sold the same long back. P.I. Sawant was not satisfied with the explanation given by the appellant. Therefore, he asked the appellant to come down to Surat. The appellant expressed her inability to go to Surat and asked P.I. Sawant to come to Jabalpur, but P.I. Sawant refused to do so and insisted that the appellant should come to Surat. Therefore, the appellant arrived at Surat Railway Station on October 10, 2008. After reaching Surat Railway Station, the appellant straightaway went to the residence of her disciple Mr. Bhim Bhai. At about 10 AM P.I. Sawant met the appellant and revealed to the appellant that her two wheeler had been used in Malegaon blast and it was planted with explosives. The appellant told P.I. Sawant that she had sold the two wheeler in October, 2004 to one Mr. Sunil Joshi for Rs. 24,000/- and she had also signed R.T.O. TT transfer form and had no control over the vehicle. P.I. Sawant repeatedly asked the appellant as to how that vehicle reached Malegaon and how it was used to blast bombs, to which the appellant could not give satisfactory answers. P.I. Sawant, therefore, disbelieved the appellant and asked her to accompany him to Mumbai. Initially, P.I. Sawant had suggested to the appellant to take her father along with her, but the appellant had declined the said offer on the ground that physical condition of her father was not well. The appellant expressed her desire to be accompanied by her disciple and P.I. Sawant had granted the same. The appellant with her disciple Bhim Bhai reached Mumbai in the vehicle belonging to P.I. Sawant at 11.30 PM The case of the appellant is that she was t
Bhim Singh, MLA v. State of J & K
Chaganti Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Dr. Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat
Mustaq Ahmed Mohammed Isak v. State of Maharashtra
New Delhi v. Anupam J. Kulkarni
State of Maharashtra v. Bharati Chandmal Varma (Mrs) (2002)2 SCC 121.
State through CBI v. Mohd. Ashraft Bhat
Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra
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.