Bombay High Court
Farooq Shaukat Bagwan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 September, 2025
Author: A.S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-AS:37553-DB
dtg Apeal-300-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 300 OF 2024
Farooq Shaukat Bagwan ]
Aged : 39 years, Occu: Business ]
305, Ghorpade Peth, New Galaxy Building, ]
3rd Floor, Flat No. 8-B, Pune - 42. ]
(Presently in Judicial Custody at ]
Mumbai Central Prison, Mumbai) ] ... Appellant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ]
(At the instance of ATS, Mumbai) ] ... Respondents
_______________________________________
Mr. Mubin Solkar a/w Mr. Tahir Hussain, Mr. Anas Shaikh, Mr. Hemal Shah
and Ms. Tahera Qureshi for Appellant.
Mr. Vinod Chate, A.P.P. for Respondent-State.
_______________________________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 11th August 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 9th September 2025
JUDGMENT :
(Per:- A.S. Gadkari, J.)
1) By this Appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation
Agency Act ( for short NIA Act), the Appellant has impugned Order dated 1 st
September 2021, passed by below Exh. 282 in MCOCA Special Case No. 7 of
2013, rejecting his Application for bail, under Section 439 of the Code of
dtg Apeal-300-2024.doc
Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)
1.1) Appellant is original accused No. 6 in the said MCOCA Special
Case No. 7 of 2013. The said case is culmination of investigation of C.R. No.
09 of 2012 by ATS Police Station, Mumbai (originally registered as C.R. No.
168 of 2012 with Deccan Police Station Pune), for the offences punishable
under Sections 307, 435 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with
Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, read with Sections 3, 25
of the Arms Act, read with Sections 16(1) (b), 18, 20, 23, 38 and 39 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Amendment 2008, read with
Sections 3(1) (ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime
Act, 1999 (MCOC Act).
2) It is the prosecution case that, on 1 st August 2012, approximately
between 19.25 to 23.30 hours five low intensity explosions took place in the
city of Pune. In the said blasts, one person was injured. Apart from five bomb
blasts, one live bomb was found in the carrier basket of Hero Street Ranger
black colour bicycle, parked opposite Zodiac shop near Axis Bank on Jangli
Maharaj Road, Pune. The same was defused by the Bomb Detection and
Disposal Squad, Pune. Accordingly, initially C.R. No. 168 of 2012 was
registered with Deccan Police Station, Pune. The said crime was subsequently
transferred for further investigation with ATS Police Station, Mumbai. During
the course of investigation, it was revealed that, the motive behind
commission of the said crime was to cause mass destruction of life and
dtg Apeal-300-2024.doc
property and to strike terror in the minds of general public at large. The
accused persons had conspired to cause the said blasts, to take revenge of the
death of one Mr. Qateel Siddique, an Indian Mujahedeen operative, who was
killed in Yerwada Prison, Pune, on 8th June 2012. In all 9 accused persons
were arrested in the said crime. The Appellant has been arrested on 26 th
December 2012 and since then, he is behind bars. After completion of
investigation, the police have filed charge-sheet.
3) Mr. Solkar, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant
submitted that, the Appellant is behind bars for more than 12 ½ years. That
co-accused namely Munib Iqbal Memon (A-5), who was also arrested on 26 th
December 2012 by the Respondent, has been granted bail by the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court by its Judgment dated 20 th September 2024. That, the
role played by the Appellant herein is either same or similar to that of co-
accused Munib Iqbal Menon (A-5) and therefore the Appellant is entitled to
be released on bail on the ground of parity. He submitted that, even
otherwise the Appellant has undergone more than 12 ½ years of pre-trial
incarceration and therefore also he is entitled for release on bail. As per the
Appellant, as on 11th August 2025 i.e in last more than 12 ½ years, the
prosecution has examined in all 27 witnesses out of approximately total 170
witnesses cited by it. Mr. Solkar therefore prayed that, the Appellant may be
released on bail.
4) Mr. Chate, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State
dtg Apeal-300-2024.doc
vehemently opposed the Appeal. He supported the impugned Order dated 1 st
September 2021. He drew our attention to the confessional statements of co
accused Firoz @ Hamza Abdul Hameed Sayyed (A-3), Irfan Mustafa Landge
@ Zaki @ Vicky @ Fahad @ Kabeer Deshmukh @ Kamaran (A-4) and the
Appellant himself, dated 9th January 2013. He submitted that, co-accused
Firoz @ Hamza Abdul Hameed Sayyed (A-3) passed away on 7 th April 2024
in judicial custody while undergoing treatment at JJ hospital, Mumbai. He
submitted that, the role attributed to the Appellant is that, he prepared
forged documents on his computer, which were subsequently used by Munib
Iqbal Memon (A-5) for obtaining SIM cards for mobile phones. That, the
Appellant also permitted and/or provided for use of his shop premises to the
co-accused for hatching criminal conspiracy for planning the series of bomb
blasts. He submitted that, taking into consideration the role attributed to the
Appellant, his request for bail may not be considered and the Appeal may be
dismissed.
5) Perusal of record indicates that, the allegation against the
Appellant (A-6) is that, he prepared forged and/or bogus documents on his
computer and provided it to the co-accused Munib Iqbal Menon (A-5) for
obtaining SIM cards for mobile phones. The said mobile phones were
thereafter used by other co-accused for inter se connection/conversation. The
Appellant also provided his shop premises for allegedly hatching criminal
conspiracy for planning the said bomb blasts.
dtg Apeal-300-2024.doc
5.1) At this stage, it be noted here that, co-accused Firoz @ Hamza
Abdul Hameed Sayyed (A-3) has passed away on 7 th April 2024, while was in
judicial custody and undergoing treatment at JJ hospital at Mumbai.
Therefore according to us, the confessional statement of co-accused Firoz @
Hamza Abdul Hameed Sayyed (A-3) recorded under the MCOC Act is of no
avail to the prosecution at this stage. Perusal of confessional statement of the
Appellant (A-6) and other co-accused recorded under Section 18 of the
MCOC Act, prima facie indicates that, the role attributed to the Appellant is
as noted in the aforestated para No.5.
5.2) Role attributed to co-accused Munib Iqbal Memon (A-5) is that,
he used the allegedly forged documents prepared by the Appellant for
purchasing a bogus SIM card and gave it to co-accused Imran Khan Wajid
Khan Pathan (A-2), which was subsequently used by the co-accused for inter
say conversation from respective mobile phones.
5.3) Record indicates that, the Special Public Prosecutor appearing
for the Respondent has stated before the trial Court that, Section 307 read
with Section 120-B of the IPC do not apply to the Appellant. Though, the
prosecution has submitted a list of more than 170 witnesses, it is stated that,
the prosecution may examine approximately 170 witnesses in support of its
case. As of 11th August 2025, the prosecution has examined only 27
witnesses out of 170 witnesses it proposes to examine. The Appellant
admittedly is in pre-trial incarceration for last more than about 12 ½ years.
dtg Apeal-300-2024.doc
5.4) A three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713, in para No.
17 has held 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 statue 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 UAPA being
used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale
breach of constitutional right to speedy trial."
5.5) Record further indicates that, apart from the present crime,
there are no other antecedents at the discredit of the Appellant. The said fact
can be discerned from the chart annexed by the Investigating Officer to his
Affidavit dated 16th July 2025. It may noted here that, there is no charge
under Section 302 of the IPC in the present case against any of the accused.
Some of the offences with which the Appellant is charged, the minimum
dtg Apeal-300-2024.doc
sentence of five years and a maximum sentence of imprisonment for life, is
prescribed therein.
The role attributed to the Appellant in present crime is similar to
that of co-accused Munib Memon (A-5). According to us, the principle of
parity with co-accused Munib Iqbal Memon (A-5) squarely applies to the
Appellant and therefore also the Appellant is entitled to be released on bail.
As noted earlier, the Appellant has already undergone pre-trial incarceration
of more than 12 ½ years. As of today, the prosecution has examined only 27
witnesses out of 170 witnesses cited by it. It is thus clear that, the possibility
of trial concluding in the near future appears to be remote. It is by now well
settled principle of law that, the right to a speedy trial of an accused is a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5.6) In view of the above, the Appellant is entitled to be released on
bail during the pendency of the said trial.
6) Hence, the following Order.
(i) The impugned Order dated 1st September 2021, passed by the learned
Special Judge (MCOCA), City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay
below Exhibit-282 in MCOCA Special Case No. 07 of 2013, is quashed and
set-aside.
(ii) The Appellant be enlarged on bail, on his executing PR Bond in the
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or more solvent local sureties in the like
amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, NIA Court.
dtg Apeal-300-2024.doc
(iii) After his release from jail, the Appellant shall report to the office of the
ATS, Mumbai (Respondent), on the first Saturday of every month from 10:00
a.m. to 12:00 noon, till the conclusion of the trial.
(iv) 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.
(v) The Appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of districts Mumbai and
Pune, till the conclusion of the trial, without the prior permission of the NIA
Court i.e. the trial Court.
(vi) Appellant shall surrender his passport, if any, before the NIA Court,
before his actual release from jail.
(vii) 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 Agency i.e. the Respondent herein.
(viii) Appellant to co-operate in conducting the trial of present case and
attend the trial Court on all dates, unless specifically exempted.
(ix) Appellant shall file an undertaking with regard to clauses (iii) to (viii)
before the trial Court, within two weeks of his release.
(x) If there is breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the prosecution
will be at liberty to seek cancellation of the Appellant's bail.
7. Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
dtg Apeal-300-2024.doc
8. 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.
9. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this Judgment.
( RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. )
