1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.1937 OF 2019

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.578 OF 2019

NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ZAHOOR AHMAD SHAH WATALI

...RESPONDENT(S)/

APPLICANT(S)

O R D E R

1.

After hearing counsel for the applicant for

some time, it appears that the grievance of the

applicant is limited to the observation in

paragraph 29 of the judgment dated April 02,

2019, which reads thus:

“29.

xxx

xxx

xxx

Additionally, the charge­sheet is accompanied with

documents D­9b and D­9c, which are photographs of

ex­militant Aftab Hilali Shah @ Shahid­ul­Islam (A­3)

holding AK­47, seen with other terrorists. These

photographs were seized from the residence of the

said ex­militant on 3^rd June, 2017. The prosecution

case is that the respondent (Accused No.10) was in

constant touch with the said ex­militant Aftab Hilali

Shah @ Shahid­ul­Islam (A­3), as noticed from the

Digitally signed by

CHARANJEET KAUR

Date: 2019.11.07

18:21:48 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

inter­linkage chart depicted above. That fact is

backed by the CDR analysis report, also part of the

charge­sheet. “

2.

It is urged that there is mismatch between

CDR analysis report and the inter-linkage chart

incorporated in the charge-sheet (at Page 55 of

the bound copy filed in this Court). Further,

the last two sentences in the aforequoted

portion of the judgment are likely to be used

against the applicant at every stage of the

pending proceedings.

3.

In the context of this apprehension, we

make it amply clear that the stated observation

is only a prima facie view expressed by us

whilst dealing with the prayer for bail. It

cannot be construed as the final determination

of the matter in issue regarding the

correctness of the contents of the concerned

document, including the factum of mismatch, as

such. The trial Court will have to consider the

plea of the applicant on the basis of the

material available before it, on its own

merits, independent of the observation made in

3

paragraph 29, referred to above.

4.

It is also made clear that if the trial

Court records a finding in reference to the

factual position as contended, it will be open

to the applicant to pursue appropriate remedy,

as may be permissible in law.

5.

In this view of the matter, nothing more

is required to be said in this application. The

application is accordingly disposed of.

..................,J.

(A.M. KHANWILKAR)

..................,J.

(AJAY RASTOGI)

NEW DELHI

NOVEMBER 05, 2019

4

ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.8 SECTION II-C

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.1937 OF 2019

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.578 OF 2019

NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ZAHOOR AHMAD SHAH WATALI

...RESPONDENT(S)/

APPLICANT(S)

(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.99623/2019-INITIATING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

U/S 340 OF CRPC)

Date : 05-11-2019 This application was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI

For Appellant(s)

Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Attorney General

Mr. R. Balasubramaniam, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv.

For Respondent(s)/

Mr. Reyaz Ahmad Jan, Sr. Adv.

Applicant(s) Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, AOR

Mr. Vaibhav Tandon, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

The application is disposed of in terms of

the signed order.

(NEETU KHAJURIA)

COURT MASTER

(VIDYA NEGI)

COURT MASTER

(Signed order is placed on the file.)