Bombay High Court
Munib Iqbal Memon vs State Of Maharashtra on 20 September, 2024
Author: Revati Mohite Dere
Bench: Revati Mohite Dere, Sharmila U. Deshmukh
NISHA
2024:BHC-AS:37433-DB Digitally signed by
NISHA SANDEEP
SANDEEP CHITNIS
Date: 2024.09.21
CHITNIS 11:33:46 +0530
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.491 OF 2024
Munib Iqbal Memon
Aged:42 years, Occu: Tailor
Flat No. 24, 4th Floor,
Global Heights, Kondwa, Pune.
(Presently in Judicial Custody ...Appellant
At Mumbai Central Prison, Mumbai.) (Orig. Accused No.5)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
At the instance of Anti-Terrorism Squad ...Respondent
Kala Chowkie, Mumbai. (Orig. Complainant)
Mr. Mubin Solkar a/w Ms. Tahera Qureshi, Mr. Tahir Hussain,
and Mr. Anas Shaikh, for the Appellant.
Mr. Vaibhav Bagade, Spl. P.P. a/w Ms. Kranti T. Hiwrale, A.P.P for the
Respondent - State.
ACP - Subhash Dudhgaonkar and PSI-Mohan Dongre, from A.T.S,
Pune Unit, are present.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 21st AUGUST 2024
PRONOUNCED ON: 20th SEPTEMBER 2024
N. S. Chitnis 1/26
::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2024 06:10:19 :::
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
JUDGMENT (Per Revati Mohite Dere, J.) :
-
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Admit. Learned Special Public Prosecutor waives notice on
behalf of the respondent-State.
3. By this appeal, preferred under Section 21(4) of the
National Investigation Agency Act, ('NIA Act'), the appellant seeks
quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 5th February
2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, City Civil and Sessions
Court, Greater Bombay in Bail Application (Exhibit-445) filed in
Special Case No.7 of 2013, by which, the appellant's application
(Exhibit-445) seeking his enlargement on bail, came to be rejected by
the said Court. Accordingly, 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 Sections 307, 435 and 120B of
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'); Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive
Substances Act; Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act; Sections 16(1)(b),
18, 20, 23, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of
1967 ('UAPA') as amended in 2008; and, under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2)
and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act ('MCOC
Act').
4. Admittedly, the appellant's first appeal being Criminal
Appeal No.299 of 2022 seeking his enlargement on bail in connection
with the aforesaid C.R. was dismissed by this Court vide order dated
27th September 2022, having regard to Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA,
after observing that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accusations against the appellant are prima facie true. The said order
dismissing the appellant's first appeal seeking his enlargement on bail
is at Exhibit - A, at page 27 of the appeal.
5. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the appellant on the
ground of delay in the trial, resulting in infringement of the appellant's
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India i.e. right to speedy trial.
6. Mr. Solkar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the appellant is in custody i.e. pre-trial detention, since 26 th December
2012 i.e. for almost 11 ½ years. He submits that although the
incident took place in December 2012, charge came to be framed in
the said case only in 2022 and it is only in February 2024 that the first
witness stepped into the witness-box. Learned counsel submits that
despite this Court's order dated 27 th September 2022 expediting the
appellant's trial, till date, the prosecution has examined only 7
witnesses and that the 8th witness is in the witness-box. He submits
that the prosecution had made a statement that although there are 300
odd witnesses, they propose to examine only 107 witnesses. He
submits that since no death had occurred, none of the offences are
punishable with death and that the minimum sentence for the offences
with which the appellant is charged under the UAPA are under 5 years,
extending upto imprisonment for life. He submits that although
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
charge was framed on 4 th April 2022, for the offence punishable under
Sections 307 r/w 120B, Sections 435 r/w 120B of the IPC and Section
16(1)(b) of the UAPA against the appellant in addition to the other
Sections under the IPC, UAPA as well as under MCOC Act, the
aforesaid Sections i.e. Sections 307 r/w 120B, Sections 435 r/w 120B
of the IPC and Section 16(1)(b) of the UAPA came to be amended and
as such deleted qua the appellant on 20th April 2022. Mr. Solkar
relied on the roznama which is there in the compilation of the
documents tendered by him. Mr. Solkar submits that after the said
ground was argued before this Court i.e. the appellant is not charged
for the offences under Sections 307 r/w 120B of the IPC and other
sections, the prosecution clandestinely moved an application and again
got the said sections added and that now the appellant has moved the
trial Court, pointing to the conduct of the prosecution and that the
said application is pending before the trial Court.
7. Mr. Solkar relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v/s State
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
of Uttar Pradesh1, in which the Apex Court by emphasizing the right
to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India granted bail to the accused therein, since the
right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India had been infringed. He submitted that in the said judgment it is
categorically stated that the statutory restrictions would not come in
the way, where there is a delay in the trial. Learned counsel submitted
that the Apex Court has further observed that 'Even in the case of
interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a
constitutional court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the
rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part'.
8. Mr. Bagade, learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted
that there is no change of circumstance warranting grant of bail to the
appellant, more particularly when the appellant's appeal seeking his
enlargment on bail i.e. Criminal Appeal No.299 of 2022, was
dismissed by this Court on merits vide order dated 27 th September
2022. He submitted that the trial of the appellant has already been
1 Cri.Appeal No. 2790/2024 dated 18th July, 2024
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
expedited and that the prosecution will take all steps to ensure that the
trial will conclude at the earliest.
9. Perused the papers. At the outset, we may note that the
appellant had preferred Criminal Appeal No.299 of 2022 seeking his
enlargement on bail in connection with C.R. No. 9 of 2012 registered
with the Anti Terrorism Squad Police Station ('ATS'), Mumbai i.e.
original C.R. No.168 of 2012, registered with the Deccan Police
Station, Pune, in this Court. By the said appeal, the appellant had
sought bail on merits, on parity, as well as, on the ground of delay in
commencement of the trial i.e. at the relevant time, the appellant had
undergone pre-trial detention of about 9 years and 9 months. The
said order by which the appeal seeking bail was dismissed is at Exhibit
- A, at page 27 of the appeal.
10. The prosecution case, is as under:
The case pertains to five bomb blasts that took place in
Pune City on 1st August, 2012 at around 7:00 p.m. in the areas of
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
Deccan Gymkhana, Bal Gandharv Rang Mandir and other adjoining
areas. A live bomb was also recovered from one of the spots. The
bombs which were used in the commission of the offences were placed
in bicycle baskets. All the bicycles were placed in one of the
prominent business and crowded areas in Pune. Pursuant to the said
five blasts that took place at various locations in Pune City, an FIR
came to be lodged initially with the Deccan Police Station, Pune as
against unknown persons. The offences alleged were Sections 307, 427
and 120B of the Indian Penal Code etc. Thereafter, the investigation
came to be transferred to the ATS, Mumbai. Nine persons came to be
arrested in connection with the aforesaid offences and some accused
are stated to be still absconding. It is the prosecution case, that the said
bomb blasts were planned by the accused with the intent of striking
terror in the minds of the people and for causing deaths/injuries to
persons and/or causing loss or damage or destruction of property. 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. We may note here, that Quatil
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
Siddique was arrested in connection with the conspiracy to commit
bomb blast at Dagadu Sheth Ganpati Mandir in Pune. In connection
with the said case, Quatil Siddique was arrested and was lodged at
Yerwada Central Jail, Pune, where he was murdered by two persons,
whilst in jail. It is the prosecution case, that to avenge the death of
Quatil Siddique, the members of the Indian Mujahideen, a banned
terrorist organization, acting as an organized crime syndicate
conspired to cause bomb blasts, in Pune City. It is alleged by the
prosecution, that initially there was a plan to kill the assailants of
Quatil Siddique when they were brought to Court, by firing at them,
however, as the said plan could not be executed, it was decided to
cause bomb blasts.
11. Whilst considering the appellant's first appeal seeking his
enlargement on bail, we had noted that admittedly even according to
the prosecution, the appellant was not amongst the accused, who had
planted the bombs on bicycles on 1 st August, 2012. As far as the
appellant is concerned, his role was only spelt out by the co-accused -
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
Irfan Mustafa Landge (original accused No.4), Farooq Bagwan
(original accused No.6) and Firoz @Hamza Sayyed (original accused
No.3) in their confessional statement, recorded under Section 18 of
the MCOC Act on 9th January, 2013. The said three confessional
statements of the aforesaid accused recorded under Section 18 of the
MCOC Act revealed (i) that the appellant was a friend of Quatil
Siddique, who was killed in jail custody; (ii) that the appellant was
working with Firoz @Hamza (original accused No.3), in his tailoring
shop (iii) that the appellant was present in the secret meeting which
took place on 8th July 2012 at Firoz @Hamza's (original accused
No.3) tailoring shop, when the conspiracy to plant bombs was
hatched; (iv) that the appellant alongwith another co-accused i.e.
Farooq Bagwan (original accused No.6), who was present in the said
meeting had agreed to purchase SIM Cards by using fake documents;
(v) that pursuant thereto, the appellant was assigned with the task of
procuring bogus Sim Card based on fabricated documents prepared by
some of the accused; (vi) that the appellant visited the shop and
purchased the Sim Card in the name of Mohsin Shaikh (vii) that the
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
statement of the shopkeeper shows that the appellant had purchased
the Sim Card in the name of Mohsin Shaikh (viii) that the said Sim
Card was used in the commission of the offence; and (ix) that the
appellant was entrusted to keep Farooq's mobile with him, till
Farooq's return, post the blasts.
12. Thus, having regard to the confessional statements of the
co-accused, which prima facie revealed the complicity of the appellant
in the crime, we prima facie came to the conclusion that there were no
reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant was not guilty of
the offences with which he was charged, as mandated under Section
21(4) of the MCOC Act nor were there any reasonable grounds for
believing that the allegations against the appellant were not prima facie
true, as mandated under Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA and as such we
rejected the appeal of the appellant seeking his enlargment on bail, on
merits.
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
13. As far as parity as prayed for i.e. parity with co-accused -
Sayed Arif Amil @Kashif Biyabani and Aslam Shabbir Sheikh @Bunty
Jagirdar, is concerned, we found that there was no parity with the said
co-accused.
14. Insofar as, delay in commencement of the trial was
concerned, we in paras 18 and 19 of our order dated 27th September
2022 passed in the appellant's first appeal being Criminal Appeal
No.299 of 2022 seeking his enlargement on bail, had observed as
under:-
"18. As far as delay in commencement of the trial
is concerned, it appears that charge was framed in the
said case on 25th May 2022 and that the prosecution
intends to examine about 107 witnesses. In this
connection heavy reliance was placed on the judgment
of the Apex Court in Shaheen Welfare Association
(supra), in which the Apex Court considered the
conflicting claims of personal liberty emanating from
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and protection
of the society from terrorist acts, which the Terrorist
and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987,
professed to achieve. Whilst reconciling the two, the
Apex Court issued directions for release of undertrial
prisoners, who had suffered long incarceration,
depending upon the gravity of the charges. The
observations in paras 9 to 11 and 13 to 14 are material
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
and hence reproduced hereinunder:-
9. The petition thus poses the problem of reconciling
conflicting claims of individual liberty versus the
right of the community and the nation to safety
and protection from terrorism and disruptive
activities. While it is essential that innocent people
should be protected from terrorists and
disruptionists, it is equally necessary that terrorists
and disruptionists are speedily tried and punished.
In fact the protection to innocent civilians is
dependent on such speedy trial and punishment.
The conflict is generated on account of the gross
delay in the trial of such persons. This delay may
contribute to absence of proper evidence at the
trial so that the really guilty may have to be
ultimately acquitted. It also causes irreparable
damage to innocent persons who may have been
wrongly accused of the crime and are ultimately
acquitted, but who remain in jail for a long period
pending trial because of the stringent provisions
regarding bail under TADA. They suffer severe
hardship and their families may be ruined.
10. Bearing in mind the nature of the crime and the
need to protect the society and the nation, TADA
has prescribed in Section 20(8) stringent provisions
for granting bail. Such stringent provisions can be
justified looking to the nature of the crime, as was
held in Kartar Singh case, on the presumption that
the trial of the accused will take place without
undue delay. No one can justify gross delay in
disposal of cases when undertrials perforce remain
in jail, giving rise to possible situations that may
justify invocation of Article 21.
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
11. These competing claims can be reconciled by
taking a pragmatic approach.
13. For the purpose of grant of bail to TADA detenus,
we divide the undertrials into three (sic four)
classes, namely, (a) hardcore undertrials whose
release would prejudice the prosecution case and
whose liberty may prove to be a menace to society
in general and to the complainant and prosecution
witnesses in particular; (b) other undertrials whose
overt acts or involvement directly attract Sections
3 and/or 4 of the TADA Act; (c) undertrials who
are roped in, not because of any activity directly
attracting Sections 3 and 4, but by virtue of
Sections 120-B or 147, IPC, and; (d) those
undertrials who were found possessing
incriminating articles in notified areas and are
booked under Section 5 of TADA.
14. Ordinarily, it is true that the provisions of Sections
20(8) and 20(9) of TADA would apply to all the
aforesaid classes. But while adopting a pragmatic
and just approach, no one can dispute the fact that
all of them cannot be dealt with by the same
yardstick. Different approaches would be justified
on the basis of the gravity or the charges. Adopting
this approach we are of the opinion that
undertrials falling within group (a) cannot receive
liberal treatment. Cases of undertrials falling in
group (b) would have to be differently dealt with,
in that, if they have been in prison for five years or
more and their trial is not likely to be completed
within the next six months, they can be released on
bail unless the court comes to the conclusion that
their antecedents are such that releasing them may
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
be harmful to the lives of the complainant, the
family members of the complainant, or witnesses.
Cases of undertrials falling in groups (c) and (d)
can be dealt with leniently and they can be released
if they have been in jail for three years and two
years respectively. Those falling in group (b), when
released on bail, may be released on bail of not less
than Rs.50,000 with one surety for like amount
and those falling in groups (c) and (d) may be
released on bail on their executing a bond for
Rs.30,000 with one surety for like amount, subject
to the following terms:
(1) The accused shall report to the police station
concerned once a week;
(2) The accused shall remain within the area of
jurisdiction of the Designated Court pending trial
and shall not leave the area without the permission
of the Designated Court;
(3) The accused shall deposit his passport, if any,
with the Designated Court. If he does not hold a
passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect
before the Designated Court. The Designated
Court may ascertain the correct position from the
passport authorities, if it deems it necessary;
(4) The Designated Court will be at liberty to
cancel the bail if any of these conditions is violated
or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made
out;
(5) Before granting bail, a notice shall be given to
the public prosecutor and an opportunity shall be
given to him to oppose the application for such
release. The Designated Court may refuse bail in
very special circumstances for reasons to be
recorded in writing."
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
19. Having regard to the gravity of the offence, the
role of the appellant, the evidence qua him and the
observations made by us as stated aforesaid, we also
decline to consider the appellant's plea for bail on the
ground of delay in commencement of the trial. However,
at the same time, we cannot be oblivious to the right of
the appellant to an expeditious trial guaranteed to him
under Article 21 of the Constitution of the India. Charges
in this case were framed on 25th May 2022. Accordingly,
we expedite the trial of the appellant and direct the
learned Special Judge, to conclude the trial, as
expeditiously as possible, and in any event by December
2023. All parties i.e. prosecution and defence to co-
operate with the learned Judge in the expeditious disposal
of the trial."
15. When the appellant's first appeal being Criminal Appeal
No.299 of 2022 seeking his enlargement on bail, was dismissed, the
appellant was in custody for about 9 years and 9 months. Today, the
appellant is in custody for more than 11 ½ years with no prospect of
the trial concluding within a reasonable period.
16. As noted aforesaid, although the incident took place in
December 2012, charge was framed in the said case only in 2022 and
it is only in February 2024 that the first witness stepped into the
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
witness-box. According to the prosecution, although there are 300
witnesses cited by them in the charge-sheet, the prosecution intends to
examine only 107 witnesses. As noted aforesaid, till date only about 8
witnesses have been examined and as such the possibility of the trial
concluding in the immediate near future appears to be bleak.
17. The Apex Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh
v/s State of Maharashtra and Another 2 whilst dealing with the case
under the UAPA has in para 19 observed, as under:
"19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the
court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or
protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a
speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting
agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the
ground that the crime committed is serious. Article
21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the
nature of the crime."
18. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v/s
K.A. Najeeb3 had an occasion to consider the long incarceration and
2 Cri.Appeal No. 2787/2024 dated 3rd July, 2024
3 (2021) 3 SCC 713
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
at the same time the effect of Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA and
observed as under:
"17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory
restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does
not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail
on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution.
Indeed, both the restrictions under a statute as well as the
powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be
well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of
proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate the
legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of
such provisions will melt down where there is no
likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable
time and the period of incarceration already undergone has
exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence.
Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility
of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used
as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach
of constitutional right to speedy trial."
19. Similarly, in Satender Kumar Antil v/s Central Bureau of
Investigation and Another4, the Apex Court, in para 86 has observed as
under:-
"86. ....We do not wish to deal with individual
enactments as each special Act has got an objective
behind it, followed by the rigour imposed. The
general principle governing delay would apply to
these categories also. To make it clear, the provision
4 (2022) 10 SCC 51
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
contained in Section 436-A of the Code would apply
to the Special Acts also in the absence of any specific
provision. For example, the rigour as provided under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come in the
way in such a case as we are dealing with the liberty
of a person. We do feel that more the rigour, the
quicker the adjudication ought to be. After all, in
these types of cases number of witnesses would be
very less and there may not be any justification for
prolonging the trial. Perhaps there is a need to
comply with the directions of this Court to expedite
the process and also a stricter compliance of Section
309 of the Code."
20. As noted above, in the incident that took place in 2012,
only one person was injuried and no death was reported. It appears
that initially charges were framed against the appellant on 4th April
2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 307 r/w 120B of the
IPC, Sections 435 r/w 120B of the IPC; Sections 16(1)(b), 18, 20, 38
and 39 of the UAPA and, under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the
MCOC Act and subsequently on an application being made by the
Counsel for the appellant the charge was modified. A perusal of the
roznama shows that the prosecutor had conceded that Sections 307
r/w 120B, 435 r/w 120B of the IPC and Section 16(1)(b) of the
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
UAPA, did not apply insofar as the appellant is concerned and as such
the charge came to be amended. The said charge was amended vide
order dated 20th April 2022 by the learned Special Judge.
21. We may note that when the matter was heard by us on an
earlier occassion, the aforesaid argument was advanced by the learned
Counsel for the appellant, that there was no charge vis-a-vis the
appellant under Section 307 of the IPC, the prosecutor on realising the
same, filed an application before the learned Special Judge on 1 st
August 2024. The prosecutor in its application had stated as under:-
"Application for correction/ modification/ Alternation in
charge at "Seventhly"
May it please your honour.
1. That The Ld. Session court was pleased to frame
charge against all accused including wanted
accused in the case vide Exh 344, Dated
20/04/2022.
2. After charges were framed, trial proceeded with
examination of 09 prosecution witnesses. After
reading charge it is now noticed that charge
framed at "seventhly" needs further
considerations in view of charge of conspiracy
and objective of crime to be achieved pursuant to
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
conspiracy.
3. Prosecution proposes correction or modification
or alteration or addition in the charge as follows:
a) In charge firstly, thirdly, fourthly, fifthly,
sixthly, tenthly & eleventhly, instead of "you
accused nos. 1 to 10", as "you accused nos. 1
to 9".
b) In charge seventhly, add as "you accused nos.
1 to 9".
In view of above it is prayed that:
a) By passing suitable orders proposed charge against
all accused be kindly be framed.
b) Any other just and further reliefs.
And for this act of kindness the Prosecution shall pray
forever."
22. Pursuant thereto, the trial Court on 1 st August 2024
passed the following order:-
"..........Prosecution filed application for correction/
modification/ alteration in charge at Seventhly, TOR and
marked as Exh.535. O - Otherside to say. Order-
Modification sought are in respect of technical and clerical
mistake. The corrections do not at all cause prejudice to
the defense in any manner. Hence, application Exhibit-535
is allowed. ......."
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
23. It appears that thereafter an application was filed by the
learned counsel for the appellant, for recall of the order dated 1 st
August 2024 passed on Exhibit-535 which was obtained by
misrepresenting the Court. Pursuant thereto, the trial Court vide
order dated 6th August 2024, passed the following order:-
" ........... Adv. for accused No.5, filed application for
recalling of order dated 01.08.2024 on Exhibit-535
obtained by misrepresenting to this Hon'ble Court by Ld.
SPP, TOR and marked as Exh.540. O - SPP to say. The case
is already adjourned to 12/08/2024 for Evidence (part
heard)."
24. Thus, the matter is presently pending for consideration as
to whether the charge under Section 307 of the IPC, is to be applied
to the appellant or not. It may be noted here, that there is no charge
under Section 302 of the IPC in the said case against any of the
accused.
25. It is not in dispute, that some of the offences with which
the appellant is charged, the minimum sentence is 5 years, with the
maximum sentence of imprisonment for life. As noted above, the
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
appellant has already undergone 11 ½ years of pre-trial detention. As
noted above the prosecution has examined only 8 witnesses till date
and about 100 odd witnesses are yet to be examined. It is thus
evident that the possibility of the trial concluding in the immediate
near future appears to be bleak. The right to a speedy trial under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is a fundamental right.
26. Keeping in mind the aforesaid, the charges with which the
appellant is charged and the judgments of the Apex Court, we pass the
following order:-
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed;
(ii) The impugned order dated 5th February 2024, passed by
the learned Special Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater
Bombay in Bail Application (Exhibit-445) in Special Case No.7
of 2013, stands quashed and set-aside;
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
(iii) The appellant be enlarged on bail, on executing PR Bond
in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in
the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, NIA
Court;
(iv) The appellant shall report to the office of the NIA,
Mumbai Branch, Mumbai, on the first Saturday of every month
from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, till the conclusion of the trial.
(v) The appellant shall not, either himself or through any
other person, tamper with the prosecution evidence and give
threats or inducement to any of the prosecution witnesses;
(vi) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of NIA
Court, Greater Bombay, till the conclusion of the trial, without
the prior permission of the NIA Court;
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
(vii) The appellant shall not leave India, without the prior
permission of the NIA Court;
(viii) The appellant shall surrender his passport, if any, before
the NIA Court, before his release.
(ix) The appellant shall inform his latest place of residence
and mobile contact number immediately after being released
and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time
to time to the Court seized of the matter and to the Investigating
Officer of the concerned Police Station;
(x) The appellant to cooperate with the conduct of the trial
and attend the NIA Court on all dates, unless exempted;
(xi) The appellant shall file an undertaking with regard to
clauses (iv) to (x) before the NIA Court, within two weeks of his
release;
1-apeal.2.491.2024(J).doc
(xii) If there is breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the
prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the
appellant's bail.
27. Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly
disposed of.
28. It is made clear that the observations made herein are
prima facie, and the learned Special Judge shall decide the case on its
own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations
made in this judgment.
All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this
judgment.
SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
