Zuheb @ Juheb @ Zoeb S/O Jiyauddin Ansari vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 1515 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Zuheb @ Juheb @ Zoeb S/O Jiyauddin Ansari vs State Of Gujarat on 31 July, 2025

Author: Ilesh J. Vora

Bench: Ilesh J. Vora

                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                           R/CR.A/1117/2025                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025

                                                                                                                 undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (REGULAR BAIL) NO. 1117 of 2025


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

                      and
                      HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                      ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                     Yes           No

                      ==========================================================
                                     ZUHEB @ JUHEB @ ZOEB S/O JIYAUDDIN ANSARI
                                                       Versus
                                              STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MAKSUD H PATEL(9224) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                      MR PRADIP D BHATE(1523) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
                      PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
                              and
                              HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                                                         Date : 31/07/2025

                                                   ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL)

1. The present Appellant - Org. Accused No. 2 has preferred the present Appeal under the provisions of Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008 read with Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the order passed by the Ld.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025

undefined

Special NIA Court, Ahmedabad rejecting the Bail Application of the present Appellant in connection with the case Registered against him and other accused persons being Special NIA Case No. 1/2016 arising out of FIR No. 164/2015 dated 02.11.2015 registered with Bharuch City 'A' Division Police Station later registered as RC NO. 13/2015 with NIA Delhi Police Station at New Delhi for the offence punishable under Section 114,120-B, 153-A, 201,304,449 of the IPC read with Section 16,17,18,19,20 and 23 of the UAPA and Sections 25(1B)(a), 27(1) of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

2. Facts of the present case are as under:-

2.1 That, on 2nd November 2015 at about 18:45 hrs, victims namely Shirish Bangali and Pragnesh Mistry were sitting in formers Newspaper office, Surya Printing Press,Bharuch. Two unidentified persons came on motorcycle and pillion rider got down, entered the office and fired two rounds from a revolver like weapon, one on Shirish Bengali just beneath his right earlobe and another on Pragnesh Mistry with injury in his stomach and later fled from the scene. Accordingly FIR No.164/2015 at Bharuch A Division Police Station u/s 302, 114 of IPC and 25(1) C of Arms Act and G.P. Act 135 was registered on 02.11.2015 at 20:30 hrs as per the complaint of Parthivkumar Bipinchandra Bengali,nephew of deceased

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025

undefined

Shirish Bengali.

2.2 During investigation by ATS, Gujarat, it was revealed that, International Terror Module had been conspiring to kill selected people belonging to particular sections of society to foment communal passion. Accordingly, as per intimation received from Government of Gujarat, Ministry of Home Affairs,Government of India IS-I Division vide its order number11034/107/2015-IS-IV dated 5th December, 2015directed National Investigation Agency to take up the investigation of the C.R.No.164/2015 dated 02.11.2015of Bharuch City A Division Police Station, Gujarat u/s34, 114, 120(B), 121, 121-A, 153A, 302 & 450 of Indian Penal Code, section 25(1)A, 25(1)AA & 27 of Arms Act, section 13, 17 18 of Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act and section 135 of Gujarat Police Act. Accordingly NIA re-registered the case vide RC13/2015/NIA/DLI on 05.12.2015 and taken up the investigation of the case.

3. Heard Ld. Advocates for the respective parties.

4. Ld. Advocate Mr. Maksud H. Patel for the Appellant submits:-

(1) That owing to the complaint lodged by the complainant during the investigation, the appellant came to be arrested on 11.11.2015 ever since, he is behind the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025

undefined

bar.

(2) That the case as narrated by the prosecution and in the chargesheet is totally false, unbelievable that no prudent can ever reach at conclusion, however, the appellant is arrested only on suspicious ground. In fact, appellant nothing to do with the present offence.

(3) That the Appellant has not named in the FIR and there no prima facie role attributed to him, none of the ingredients of the alleged offence have been committed by the present Appellant.

(4) That the Investigating Agency has wrongly invoked the stringent provision of UAPA and from the reading of the chargesheet, no case is made out under the provisions of UAPA.

(5) The Appellant has also undergone eight years of incarceration and though the trial is running but is not likely to conclude in near future and hence, long incarceration itself would be violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees trials to be concluded within a reasonable time.

(6) To buttress the argument, the Ld. Advocate relied upon the following judgments :-

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025

undefined

1. Athar Parwez Vs Union of India reported in 2024(0) AIJEL-SC 74416.

2 .Tapas Kumar Pali Vs. State of Chattisgarh reported in 2025 INSC 222

3. Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of India reported in 2024 INSC 604

(7) That from the deposition of the protected witness (PW 18) who examined at Exh. 255 has stated on oath that the payment was received by Co Accused Haiderali, however, in the cross examination, has admitted that he had given the instructions to Furkan Tumbi to give money.

Therefore, the present Appellant did not receive money to kill Victim gets falsified.

(8) That the bare reading of the FIR nothing being stated that the Appellant used terrorist act and it is not the case that person belonging to particular sections of the society was being targeted to kill.

(9) That only 41 witnesses examined out of 161 witnesses and since, the Trial could not be completed in near future and the Appellant deserves to be released on bail as not granting bail him would violate the Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025

undefined

(10) Because of Section 20 of UAPA has been wrongly invoked since, this is applicable to an accused who is a member of terrorist gang or terrorist organization which is involved in a terrorist Act. However, there is not single document to point out that the present Appellant is a member of terrorist gang or terrorist organization.

(11) That the present Appellant is being implicated in the case concerning events between July / August 2015 to September / October, 2015, conspiracy was hatched amongst the Accused Inayat @ Bala Son of Haziaiyub Patel (A 3), Mohamad Yunus @ Manjro son of Mohmad Yusuf Shaikh (A-4), Abid Patel Son of Dawood Patel (A-10) and Javed Dawoodbhai Patel @ Javed Chikna (WA-1) and Zahidmiya @ Jao Son of Saeedmiya Munshi Shaikh (WA-2). However, the present Appellant was not part of the conspiracy and even was not aware whether the co - accused was a member of the terrorist gang or not.

(12) because even if the evidence of the Investigation is considered as it is, the role of the appellant is only to the limited extend of acting under the direction of the co- accused. Hence, rigors of UAPA is not applicable.

Thus, prayed to allow the present Appeal and release the Appellant on Bail.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025

undefined

5. Ld. Advocate Mr. Pradip Bhate, Ld. Standing Counsel Mr. Kshitij Amin and Ld. Advocate Mr. Sandip Sadavarte as well as Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Adityasinh Jadeja appearing for the Respondent State, have vehemently opposed the present Appeal and relied upon the Affidavit in Reply on behalf of the NIA has argued that:-

5.1 The present Accused is one of the main conspirator and also the shooter who had shoot two persons namely Shirish Bangali and Pragnesh Mistry. That the present Appellant was accompanied with the Accused No. 5 Haider Ali, in executing murder by riding on motorcycle which is also recovered. That the Accused No. 6 and 7 state that present Appellants rented house in Bharuch for two days and prior to murder had performed recky. That the present Appellant along with Accused No. 5 fled away by car of Accused No. 1 after committing murder. That the Appellant with Accused No. 9 had collected weapon from Mumbai to execute two murders. The Appellant was also involved in practicing fire at Village Aamod in intervening night of 21/22.10.2015. That the Appellant have received proceeds of Rs. 50,000/- from Dubai through Havala. That one dual sim card of Nokia mobile company, motor cycle, three empty cartridge and one bullets, country made pistols, five magazines, 20 cartridges, empty cartridges in the open field of Aamod etc has been recovered by way of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025

undefined

the panchnama under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. That CCTV footage of Samanivala Travels of Bharuch has been seized. That CDR mobiles to establish that he was frequently in contact with Co-Accused i.e., A3,A9,A5,A10 are placed on record. That statement under Section 161 of the CRPC and Section 164 of the CRPC recorded in respect of 33 witnesses clearly establishes the role of the present accused. That the present Appellant had committed and played active role in murdering two victims in furtherance of the international terror conspiracy with an intent to strike terror in a people or section of people of India is clearly established from both documentary as well as oral statements and statements recorded as per section 164 of the CRPC and thus, has argued that the provisions of UAPA are attracted. That the entire conspiracy was formed by D company Member, Javed Chikna WA 1, who has declared as individual terrorist by Government of India under UAPA. That in furtherance of conspiracy associates Javed Miya @ Jao and Abid Daud patel A- 9 has hired Muslim youth to kill the people. The present Appellant along with Haidar Ali - A5 had committed the crime in furtherance of the said conspiracy. That till date 50 witnesses have been examined and after fresh pruning only 69 witnesses remained to be examined and has thus, argued that at this stage, when important witnesses are being examined granting bail to the present Appellant would seriously

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025

undefined

prejudice the case of the prosecution more particularly there are chances of hampering or tempering the witnesses since, the Appellant is a part of larger conspiracy and supported by number of co -accused persons who are still absconding and has thus, argued to reject the present Appeal.

6. From the record, it transpires that murder of Sirish Bangali and Pragnesh Mistry was a part of the larger conspiracy to kill people belonging to particular sections of the society allegedly involved in 2002 Gujarat Riots, more particularly people from RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal and BJP were targets. During the period of July to August 2015 to September to October 2015 the Conspiracy was hatched between Jahed Miya @ Jaho, Said Miya Munshi Shaikh (W2)residing in port Elizabeth, South Africa, original Native of Bharuch, Mohmad Yunush, Aabid Dawood Patel, Inayat Patel and one wanted accused Javed Chikna residing in Karachi Pakistan over phone through voice call, SMS, whats-app call/massages to kill persons belonging to particular section of society with an intention to create communal unrest. It appears that after Mohmad Yunush having identify the victim Sirish Bangali the preset Appellant murdered him alongwith one Pragnesh Mistry. It also transpires that the present Appellant preferred an Application being Misc. Application No. 35 of 2020 which came to be rejected by the Ld. Special NIA Judge, vide

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025

undefined

order dated 03.11.2020. Thereafter, Ld. Designated Court under NIA Act, vide order dated 08.04.2025 rejected NIA Cr.M.A. No. 18/2025. It appears that the present Appellant did not engage an advocate in the initial point of time however, engaged the advocate and proceeded with the matter. Thus, it cannot be said that the entire burden of delay is on the prosecution. As far as the reliance placed by the Ld. Advocate in the case of Athar Parwez (Supra) is concerned, it has been held that statutory bar on bail must be harmonious with constitutional rights to ensure speedy trial . It is also held that prolonged incarceration without Trial necessitated granting bail despite serious allegations and thus, was granted bail in the said case on the ground of violation of fundamental right due to delay in judicial proceedings. The next judgment relied on by the Ld. Advocate in the case of Tapaskumar (Supra) wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded that the Appellant was arrested on 24.03.2020, the Trial Court in progress and prosecution had been able to examined 100 witnesses under such circumstances, coupled with the fact that PW of the recovery panchnama had also turned hostile. The Appellant having been five years in the judicial custody coupled with the fact that the Ld. Counsel appearing for the State had no idea as regards the time likely to consume the complete recording of the evidence of 100 witnesses. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in such circumstances, ordered to release the Appellant on bail.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025

undefined

The Judgment of the Jalalludian (Supra) has relied upon by the Ld. Advocate in the said case, the Appellant was arrested on 12.07.2022 and the Trial Court had not made any progress coupled with the fact, from the reading of the papers of the chargesheet, the offence alleged against the appellant were punishable under Section 13,18,18-A, 20 of the UAPA, however, High Court having found that there is nothing in the chargesheet which shows that the Appellant had taken part in or act unlawful inactivity as defined in UAPA coupled with the fact that no specific material point out that the Appellate Advocated, abated or incited crime of any unlawful activity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that assuming that the co-accused indulged in terrorist act or were lacking any act preparatory to the commission of the terrorist act, there is absolutely no material on record to show that there was any conspiracy to commit any terrorist act which appellant was a party. Under such circumstances, the bail was granted to the Appellant.

7. As noted herein above, the Trial is already underway and after fresh pruning, 69 witnesses remains to be examined. As far as delay part is concerned, as noted in the order of the Ld. Trial Court NIA in 35/2020, initially, the Appellant had not engaged any advocate, however, subsequently, had engaged Advocate and proceed the matter. Hence, it cannot be said that delay is absolutely

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025

undefined

on the part of the prosecution. However, the Appellant has also delayed the proceedings by not engaging advocate initially. Therefore, cited judgments in the case of Tapas Kumar and Athar Parwez are not applicable. As far as the case of the Jalaludin Khan. The facts in the present case are totally different. As noted herein-above, the conspiracy part with the various co-accused coupled with the fact that the Javed Chikna was declared as individual terrorist by the Government of India under UAPA and in furtherance of conspiracy is associated with Javed Miya and Abid who had hired Muslim youth to eliminate the particular people of the society coupled with the fact that the Appellant accused had committed the crime in furtherance of the said conspiracy and also in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Gurvindarsingh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2024(5) SCC 403, this Court has examined material forming part of the chargesheet to decide whether there is a reasonable ground for believing the accussation against the person applying for bail are prima facie true or not and while doing so, the Court has taken into consideration chargesheet as it is.

8. Taking into consideration the legal as well as factual aspects, this Court is of the opinion that both on the count of restrictive scope under the UAPA Act coupled with the fact that prosecution alone is not liable for the delay in conducting the Trial and the manner in which the incident

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025

undefined

has taken place, this is not a fit case to exercise discretionary powers in favour of the Applicant, more particularly, when the Trial at its crucial stage of examining the important witnesses and the Appellant Accused as a part of larger international conspiracy had played role of eliminating Sirish Bangali and Pragnesh Jitubhai Mistry and if the Appellant is released on bail, there is possibility of hampering or tempering the witnesses including protected witnesses and the case as well. The charges leveled against the Appellant - Accused are heinous in nature and punishable for life imprisonment and death penalty and from the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the Appellant is not a flight risk more particularly when Co-accused persons are successfully evading the arrest till date and are also declared as absconder under such circumstances, and reasons stated herein above, it appears that the prosecution has clearly established strong prima facie case against the Appellant and this Court is not inclined to exercise powers vested to release the Appellant on bail. Accordingly the present Appeal is rejected.

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

(P. M. RAVAL, J) MMP