INTHESPECIALCOURTOFTHESPECIALJUDGE
UNDERMCOCANDNIAACTATBOMBAY
EXHIBIT3021
IN
MCOCSPL.CASENO.1OF2009
@MCOCSPL.CASENO.8OF2011
@NIASPL.CASENO.1OF2016
PragyasinghChandrakantsingh
Thakur@Sadhvi
)
)
Versus.
StateofMaharashtra
(ThroughNIA,Mumbai.
)
)
AccusedNo.1.
Respondents.
Mr.Rasal,SPPforState/Respondent.
AdvocateMr.J.P.Mishra@AdvocateMr.PrashantMagguforAccusedNo.
1.
AdvocateMr.WahabKhanforIntervener.
CORAM:THESPECIALJUDGE
SHRI.S.D.TEKALE
UNDERMCOCANDNIAACT
C.R.NO.26.
DATE:28THJUNE2016.
ORALORDERBELOWEXHIBIT3021
1.
PragyasinghChandrakantsinghThakur@SadhviinMCOCSpecialCase
No.1/2009.Applicantalongwithtwelvecoaccusedischargesheetedby
AntiTerroristSquad(ATS)underSections302,307,326,324,427,153A
and120BoftheIndianPenalCodereadwithSections3,4,5,6ofthe
IndianExplosiveSubstanceAct1980readwithSections3,5and25of
:2:
ArmsAct1959readwithSections15,16,17,18,20and23ofUnlawful
Activities(Prevention)Act1967readwithSections3(1)(i),3(1)(ii),3(2),
3(4),3(5)ofMCOCAct,1999.
2.
Brieffactsofthecaseconcerningtothisbailapplicationcan
besummarizedasunder:
On29.9.2008atabout9.35p.m.bombexplosiontookplaceat
Malegaon, District Nasik Opposite Shakil Goods Transport Company
betweenAnjumanChowkandBhikuChowk.Thesaidblastwascausedby
explosivedevicefittedinLMLFreedomMotorCyclebearingregistration
No.MH15P4572.Asaresultofthesaidexplosionsixpersonswerekilled
andabout101personshadreceivedinjuriesofvariousnature.Damageto
thepropertywasalsocaused.
3.
Initiallyon30.09.2008atabout3.00a.m.offencecametobe
registeredunderCRNo.130/2008inAzadNagarPoliceStation,Malegaon
underSections302,307,326,324,427,153Aand120BoftheIndian
PenalCodereadwithSections3,4,5and6ofIndianExplosiveSubstance
ActreadwithSections3,5and25ofArmsAct1959.
4.
opinedthatexhibitscollectedfromtheplaceofoffencecontainedcyclonite
(RDX)andAmmoniumNitrate whichareusedashighexplosive.Itwas
alsotranspiredthatregistrationnumberoftheLMLfreedommotorcycle
usedinthecrimewasbogusandchassisandenginenumberofthesaid
motorcyclewerefoundtobeerased.
:3:
5.
On18.10.2008 theprovisionsofSections15,16,17,18,20
and23oftheUnlawfulActivities(Prevention)Act1967(Amended)2004
(hereinafterreferredtoas"UAP"Act) wereinvokedandinvestigationof
this case was entrusted to Dy.SP (Headquarter) Nasik Rural as per the
provisions of UAP Act. Thereafter on 26.10.2008 ACP and Chief
InvestigatingOfficer,ATS,MumbaiMohanKulkarnitookthechargeofthe
investigation.On29.11.2008theprovisionsoftheMaharashtraControlof
OrganizedCrimeAct1999.(Hereinafterreferredtoas"MCOC"Act)were
added. Investigating Officer of the ATS investigated the matter and
initially submitted the charge sheet on 20.09.2009. Thereafter ATS
arrested Accused No.12 and submitted the supplementary charge sheet
againsthimon20.04.2011. Duringthe courseofinvestigationoriginal
enginenumberofLMLfreedommotorcyclewassuccessfullyrestoredby
FSL Nasik and after further investigation it was found that original
registration numberofthe saidmotor cycle was GJ05BR1920.Itwas
also transpired that applicant is registered owner of the said vehicle.
Accordinglyapplicantwasarrestedon23.10.2008atMumbaialongwith
coaccusedNos.2and3i.e.ShivnarayanGopalsinghKalsangraandShyam
BhavarlalSahu.
6.
servingasArmyOfficerandwasassociatedwithMilitaryIntelligenceand
InteriorTerrorism(InsurgencyActivities).PrasadPurohitfloatedAbhinav
Bharat Organization on 09.02.2007 inspite of being serving as
Commissioned Officer in Arm Forces against service rules.According to
prosecutioncoaccusedRameshUpadhyaya,SwamiAmrutanandandother
:4:
coaccusedincludingsomewitnessesweremembersofthesaidAbhinav
Bharat Organization. It is the case of the ATS that the object of the
accusedpersonswastoturnIndiaintoHinduRashtracalledas"Aryavart".
TheywantedtoformGovernmentinexile.Applicantandcoaccusedwere
dissatisfiedwiththeConstitutionofIndiaandhadwantedtopreparetheir
ownconstitution.Theyhadplannedtotrainthepersonsforguerrillawar.
They had also decided to kill the persons opposing their object of
formation of Hindu Rashtra which is against the secular policy of the
Government. As per the case of ATS this applicant, coaccused and
membersofthesaidorganizationtimetotimeheldmeetingstodiscuss
variousaspectsforachievingtheirgoal.AspercaseoftheATSinoneof
the meetings at Bhopal during the course of discussion applicant
shoulderedtheresponsibilityforprovidingpersonstocausebombblastin
ordertotakerevengeofJihadiactivitiesbyMohamediancommunity.As
per prosecution case coaccused Swami Amrutanand has recorded the
conversationinsomeofthemeetings.
7.
ItisthecaseofATSthatsaidAbhinavBharatistheOrganized
CrimeSyndicateanditsmemberswereactivesinceyear2003.According
toATSapplicantandcoaccusedenteredintocriminalconspiracybetween
January 2008 to 23rdOctober 2008 withthe common object and with
intention to strike terror in the minds of people by exploding bomb at
Malegaon and overawe the Government. According to ATS coaccused
PrasadPurohithadbroughtRDXwithhimfromKashmiraftercompleting
hispostingthereandsamewaskeptinhiscupboardathishouse.
:5:
8.
ThecaseoftheATSfurthershowsthattracesofRDXwerealso
foundinthehouseofaccusedNo.11SudhakarOmprakashChaturvedi@
Chanakya Sudhakar at Devlali Camp Nasik. According to the ATS
absconding accused Ramji @ Ramchandra Gopalsingh Kalsangra and
SandipDangeandaccusedNo.12PraveenVenkateshTakkalki@Pravin
Mutalik inpursuanceoftheconspiracyhatchedbyallaccusedpersons
plantedandexplodedtheexplosivedevicebyusingLMLFreedomMotor
Cycle. Case of ATS further shows that absconding accused Ramchandra
andSandipDangearethemenofthisapplicantactedatherinstance.Case
ofATSfurthershowsthatapplicantaccusedprovidedabovemotorcycle
belongingtoherforcausingbombblast.Inthiswayapplicantisoneofthe
principal conspirators and took active part in the said bomb blast by
providingplantersaswellashermotorcycleforplantingexplosiveinit.
9.
holymonthofRamzanincrowdedplacehavingmuslimdominatingarea.
HolyfestivalofNavratriwastocommenceon30.09.2008. Accordingto
theprosecutionthisbombblastwascausedwithintenttostriketerrorin
the people and to create communal rift. After completion of the
investigation Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS) Bombay filed charge sheet on
20.01.2009.
10.
Atthisstageitwillappropriatetomentionthatafterfilingthe
:6:
01.04.2011. Accordinglyon13.04.2011NIAreregisteredtheoffencein
respectofthesaidincidentasCrimeNo.05/2011.
11.
ItwillappropriatetomentionthatcoaccusedPrasadPurohit
DivisionBenchoftheHon'bleHighCourtBombaydated19.07.2010 in
AppealNo.866/2009beforetheHon'bleApexCourt. CoaccusedPrasad
Purohitalsochallengedtheorderregardingrejectionofhisbailapplication
bytheHon'bleHighCourtbeforetheHon'bleApexCourt.
:7:
13.
TheHon'bleApexCourtbycommonorderdated15.04.2015
inCriminalAppealNo.19691970of2010decidedallappealsraisedbythe
applicantandothercoaccusedpersonsregardingapplicabilityofMCOC
Act in present case. The Apex Court also restored Bail Application No.
42/2008tothefileofthiscourtforafreshdecisioninthelightofthe
observationsmadeinthejudgmentdated15.4.2015.Thisapplicantwas
appellantinSLP(Criminal)No.8132/2010beforetheHon'bleApexCourt.
In the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court also held that this
applicant is entitled for the same relief as is granted to the appellant
PrasadPurohitforconsideration ofgrantofbail. Thecopyofthesaid
orderoftheHon'bleApexCourtisatExhibit2377.
14.
Itisnotdisputedbeforemethatinitiallythisapplicanthad
:8:
15.
AfterdecisionoftheHon'bleApexCourtasperExhibit2377
applicanthadfiledapplicationatExh.2400forbailon21.09.2015.That
applicationwasrejectedbythiscourton07.11.2015.
16.
CodeofCriminalProcedureon13.05.2016.AccordingtoNIAduringthe
course of further investigation u/s. 173(8) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure it is transpired that accused No.1 Pragyasingh
ChandrakantsinghThakur@Sadhvihasnoconcernedwiththisoffence
andInvestigating officerofNIAexoneratedherasnocaseis madeout
againstaccusedNo.1.NIAhasalsodroppedthechargesofMCOCagainst
allaccusedpersonsandI.O.hasconcludedthatnooffenceunderMCOC
Actisattractedinthiscase.
17.
circumstanceaccusedNo.1hasfiledthisbailapplicationonthefollowing
grounds.
(i)
Themotorcycleinvolvedinthebombblastbearing
GJ05BR1920wasnotinpossessionofaccusedNo.1
andwasusedbyabscondingaccusedRamchandra
KalsangarahencethoughaccusedNo.1isshownas
registeredownerofthismotorcycleshehasno
concernedwiththeincident.
(ii)
ThereisnoprimafaciecaseagainstaccusedNo.1
regardingallegedconspiracytocommitthecrimefor
thereasons:
:9:
(i)
ConfessionalstatementsofAccusedNos.7,10and12
cannotbeconsideredasthereisnosufficientmaterial
onrecordtoshowtheprimafaciecaseinrespectof
chargesunderMCOCAct.
(ii)
PW79andPW112havechangedtheirpreviousversion
beforeinvestigatingofficerofNIAandtheyhave
retractedtheirstatementsbeforetheMetropolitan
MagistrateatDelhiwhilegivingstatementu/s.164of
oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure.
(iii)
StatementofPW55cannotbereliedonashehas
retractedhispreviousstatementbeforeI.O.ofNIAand
ashehasmadecomplaintregardingharassmentand
torturemadebyofficersofATStotheHumanRights
Commission.
(iv)
StatementofPW22alsocannotbereliedonashehas
madecomplaintoftortureandharassmentbyATS
officersbeforetheJudicialMagistrate,Indore.
18.
HeardlearnedadvocatesMishraandMagguforaccusedNo.1,
advocateWahabKhanfortheintervenerandld.SPPRasalforNIA.
:10:
20.
CourtinCriminalAppealNos.19691970of2010dated15.04.2015has
raisedthedoubtregardingapplicationoftheprovisionsunderMCOCAct
againstaccusedpersonsexceptaccusedNo.7RakeshDhawade.According
to him the Hon'ble Apex Court instead of discharging these accused
personsfromthechargesofMCOCActraisedthedoubtonlybecauseat
thattimetheinvestigationbyNIAwaspending. Hesubmittedthatnow
NIAhascompletedtheinvestigationandhascometotheconclusionthat
thereisnosufficientmaterialtoprosecuteaccusedpersonsfortheoffence
punishable under MCOC Act. According to him in fact other accused
personsexceptAccusedNo.7havenonexuswiththepreviousoffencesat
ParbhaniandJalnahenceprimafacieoffencesunderMCOCActdonot
attract. He also submitted that now Special Public Prosecutor has not
opposedthebailapplicationofaccusedNo.1hencebaru/s.21(4)(b)of
MCOCActalsodoesnotattract.Notonlythisbutinviewoftheorderof
theHon'bleApexCourtdated15.04.2015alsobaru/s.21(4)(b)isnot
attracted.Accordingtohimduetothesereasonsconfessionalstatements
ofaccusedNos.7,10and12cannotbelookedinto.
21.
HefurthersubmittedthatATShasimplicatedaccusedNo.1as
conspiratorofthecommissionofcrimeonthebasisofvariousmeetings.
AccordingtohimoutofthesemeetingstwomeetingsatFaridabadand
BhopalarestronglyreliedbytheATS. Hesubmittedthataspercaseof
ATS also this applicant was not present in Faridabad meeting. He
submittedthatcaseofATSshowsthatsecretemeetingwasheldatBhopal
inwhichtherewasadiscussiontocommitbombblastatMalegaon.He
:11:
submittedthataspercaseofATSduringthesaiddiscussionaccusedNo.1
showedreadinesstoprovidemanpowerforcommittingbombblast. He
further submitted that ATS has relied mainly on PW79 and PW112 to
establishthe above fact. Accordingtohimthoughthesewitnesseshad
statedaboutshowingreadinesstoprovidemanpowerbyaccusedNo.1for
committing bomb blast at Malegaon before investigating officer of ATS
now they have retracted from their statement. Statement recorded by
investigatingofficerofNIAshowsthatPW79wasnotpresentatBhopalat
that time and PW112 has stated that no such statement was made by
accusedNo.1inhispresence.Accordingtohimthesetwowitnesseshave
stated same facts in their statements u/s. 164 of the Code of Criminal
ProcedurebeforeMetropolitanMagistrateatDelhi.Bygivingtortureand
byharassingthewitnessesfalsestatementswererecordedbyofficersof
ATS.
22.
previousstatementbeforetheinvestigatingofficerofNIA. Accordingto
himinhispreviousstatementbeforeATSofficerhehadstatedaboutthe
conversation between absconding accused Ramchandra Kalsangara and
applicant indicating the involvement of applicant in this crime and her
knowledgeabouttheuseofhermotorcycle.Accordingtohimhehasalso
lodgecomplaintallegingthatofficersofATSharassedhimandtortured
him and compelled to give statement as prepared by them before the
MetropolitanMagistrate,Mumbai. Hesubmittedthatnowinvestigating
officerrecordedhisstatementwhichalsodisclosedsamethingthatunder
threatandtortureATSofficerhasrecordedhisstatement.
:12:
23.
Hefurthersubmittedthatsamethingishappenedinrespectof
motorcycleallegedtobeinvolvedinbombblastwasinpossessionand
control of Ramji Kalsangara since year 2007. According to him
investigatingofficercametoknowabouttheownershipofmotorcycleby
the applicant after recording of statements of PW43 to PW45 on
10.11.2008buthearrestedapplicanton23.10.2008andthereisalsoentry
instationdiarydated11.10.2008aboutrealregistrationnumberofmotor
cycle. Accordingtohimallthesefactsshowthatinvestigatingofficerof
ATSconcoctedthestorytoimplicatetheapplicantinthismatterfalsely.
25.
ToshowthathowATSofficershavemadefalseinvestigating,
advocateofapplicantsubmittedthataspercaseofATSu/s.27ofIndian
EvidenceActtheyrecoveredtimersfromthehouseofaccusedNo.2Shiv
:13:
HefurthersubmittedthatstatementofPW185showsthatone
witnessbynameDilipPatidarwastakenbyATSteamtoMumbaiforthe
purposeofinvestigation. Accordingtohimtilltodaywhereaboutsofthe
saidwitnessarenotknown.HesubmittedthatCBIinquirywasdirected
by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in this matter and now
concerncourthasissuednonbailablewarrantagainsttwoofficersofATS
whowereinthesaidinvestigationteam.
27.
Insupportofallaboveargumentsadvocateofapplicantrelied
onvariousdocumentsfiledalongwithlistatExh.3113.
28.
Hefurthersubmittedthatsupplementaryreportfiledbythe
AdvocateMaggusubmittedthatallabovefactsanddocuments
filed along with list Exh.3113 and further report of NIA show that
investigationdonebyATSwasnotonlytaintedbutmotivatedforprofit.
:14:
Hefurthersubmittedthatsincefrombeginningaccusedand
:15:
31.
Advocatesofapplicantalsosubmittedthatsincelast8years
applicantisinjail.Sheissufferingfrombreastcancer.Sheisawoman.
She is deprived of her right to have medical treatment of her choice.
Applicant is victim of false investigation hence advocates of applicant
prayedtoreleasetheapplicantonbail.
32.
Theld.SPPsubmittedthatinviewoffurtherinvestigationby
NIAprosecutionhasnoobjectiontoreleasetheapplicantonbail.
33.
materialonrecordtoshowtheinvolvementofapplicantincommissionof
crime.AccordingtohimalreadyrelyingonthematerialcollectedbyATS
this court as well as the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme
Courthaverejectedbailapplicationsandothervariousapplicationsfiled
by the applicant. According to him under garb of further investigation
investigating officer of NIA has practically made reinvestigation in this
matter which cannot be permitted. He further submitted that
investigatingofficerhasnotmadeinvestigationofoffencebuthehasmade
investigationoftheinvestigationdonebyATSwhichcannotbepermitted.
AccordingtohimifreallyATShasmadethefalseinvestigationthenwhy
investigating officer of NIA has not registered the offence and take
appropriateactionagainstATSofficers.
34.
HefurthersubmittedthatmereonthegroundthatNIAhas
:16:
undertheprovisionsofMCOCActagainsttheaccused.Hesubmittedthat
theHon'bleApexCourtinthejudgmentdated15.04.2015in Criminal
AppealNo.19691970of2010simplyraisedthedoubtaboutapplicability
ofprovisionsoftheMCOCActbutaccusedarenotdischarged.According
tohiminsuchcircumstancesconfessionalstatementsofaccusedNos.7,10
and12arerequiredtobeconsideredalongwithothermaterialonrecord.
Insupportofthissubmissionadvocateofintervenerreliedontheauthority
reported in AIR 1999 SC 2640 State of Tamil Nadu through
SuperintendentofPoliceCBI/SITV/s.Naliniandothers.Hesubmitted
thattheapplicantissuchinfluentialpersonthateventhoughsheisinjail
witnesseshavechangedtheirstatements.Inshortaccordingtohimitwill
notpropertoreleasetheapplicantonbailforhavingfairtrial.Heprayed
fordismissalofthebailapplication.
35.
donetheinvestigation. InitiallyATShasfiledchargesheetagainstinall
twelveaccusedpersonsandhaveshownaccusedRamchandraKalsangara
andSandipDangeasabscondingaccused.ThereafterNIAhasmadethe
investigationinthismatterasperthedirectionoftheCentralGovernment.
InvestigatingofficerofNIAhassubmittedfurtherinvestigationreportu/s.
173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. NIA has exonerated some
accusedpersonsincludingtheapplicantfromallcharges. NIAhasalso
droppedchargesunderMCOCAct.ItisclearfromthereportfiledbyNIA
thatI.O.ofNIAisnotinagreementwiththeinvestigationdonebyATSon
certain points. But at the same time I.O. of NIA has accepted the
investigationdonebyATSonseveralotheraspectofthematter.Thisisbail
:17:
applicationofaccusedNo.1.InvestigatingofficerofNIAisindisagreement
withtheconclusiondrawnbyI.O.ofATSinrespectofaccusedNo.1.Hence
question arises thatinvestigation ofwhichinvestigating agencyistobe
accepted.
36.
investigatingagencytheinvestigationdonebyI.O.ofNIAshouldbegiven
moreweightage.ButIthinkthatthissubmissioncannotbeacceptedfor
morethanonereasons. FirstlytheinvestigationdonebyNIAisfurther
investigation as per the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code of
CriminalProcedure.MoreovertheNationalInvestigationAgencyAct2008
doesnotprovideanyspecificprovisiontotheeffectthatinvestigationdone
by NIA should be accepted in case of controversy between conclusion
drawnbyNIAandanyotherinvestigatingagency.Onthecontraryscheme
ofSection6oftheNIAActshowsthatsubsection(4)and(5)ofSection6
authorizes the Central Government to direct the agency to investigate
scheduleoffences. Subsection(6)speaksaboutresultofsuchdirection
and according to subsection (6) after such direction is given by the
CentralGovernmentStateGovernmentorpreviousinvestigatingofficerof
theStateshouldnotproceedwiththeinvestigationandshouldtransmit
therelevantdocumentsandrecordtotheagencyforthwith. Despitethe
mandateundersubsection(6)subsection(7)providesthattilltheagency
takesuptheinvestigationofthecaseitismandatoryonthepartofthe
previousinvestigatingofficertocontinuewiththeinvestigation. Whatit
showsthattheinvestigationdonebypreviousinvestigatingagencyisno
affectedonlybecauseNIAhasmadethefurtherinvestigation.
:18:
37.
TheHon'bleApexCourtin VinayTyagiV/s.IrshadAli @
Deepakandothersreportedin(2013)5SCC762 laiddownthelaw
whenthereisinvestigationbytwoormoreinvestigatingagency.Question
beforetheHon'bleApexCourtwaswhetherinexerciseofitspowersu/s.
173oftheCodeofCriminalProceduretrialcourthasthejurisdictionto
ignoreanyoneofthereports,wheretherearetworeportsbythesameor
differentinvestigatingagencyinfurtheranceoftheordersofthecourt?If
sotowhateffect. TheHon'bleApexCourtinparaNo.40haslaiddown
that:
thecourtofcompetentjurisdictionisdutyboundto
considerallreports,entirerecordsanddocuments
submittedtherewithbytheinvestigatingagencyas
itsreportintermsofSection173oftheCodeof
CriminalProcedure.Thisruleissubjecttoonlythe
followingexception:
(a)
Wherespecificorderhasbeenpassed
bythelearnedMagistrateattherequestofthe
prosecutionlimitedtoexcludeanydocumentor
anypartthereof;
(b)
Whenanorderispassedbythehigh
courtsinexerciseofisextraordinaryorinherent
jurisdictiondirectingthatanyofthereportsi.e.
primaryreport,supplementaryreportorthe
reportssubmittedon'freshinvestigation'or're
investigation'oranypartofitbeexcluded,
struckoffthecourtrecordandbetreatedasnonest.
:19:
38.
TheHon'bleApexCourtinparagraph32ofthejudgmentheld
thatbothreportshavetobeheldconjointlyanditscumulativeeffectof
reports and documents annexed thereto to which the court would be
expectedtoapplyitsmindtodeterminewhetherthereexistgroundsto
presumethataccusedhascommittedtheoffence. Consideringtheabove
lawlaiddownbytheHon'bleApexCourtitisclearthatfordecidingbail
application of the applicantitis necessarytoconsider the investigation
reportsfiledbyATSaswellasfurtherreportfiledbyNIA.
39.
Atthisstageitwillappropriateandpertinenttomentionthat
after the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.
19691970 of 2010 dated 15.04.2015 this applicant had filed bail
application at Exhibit2400 on 21.09.2015. The ld. SPP filed reply on
08.10.2015 and had resisted bail application of this applicant. After
hearingapplicant,prosecutionandintervenerthatbailapplicationcameto
berejectedon07.11.2015.Nowaccordingtotheapplicantduetofilingof
the report by NIA there is change in circumstance hence this fresh
applicationforbailisfiled.AdmittedlytheorderatExh.2400hasbecome
finalasnoappealagainstthatorderispreferred.Consideringthisfactso
far as this court is concern onlyit has tobe seen thatreallythere are
changeincircumstancesandifyeswhetherthosechangesaresufficientto
say that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that accusation
againsttheapplicantisprimafacietrue.
40.
AccordingtoapplicantfilingofreportbyNIAandexonerating
theapplicantfromallchargesbyNIAitselfissufficienttosaythatthere
:20:
Firstcontroversyisregardingwhetherthereisprimafaciecase
against the applicant for the offences punishable under MCOC Act and
whether for deciding this bail application confessional statements of
accused Nos.7, 10 and 12 can be looked into. For this purpose the
observationsoftheHon'bleApexCourtinCriminalAppealNos.19691970
of2010dated15.04.2015requiredtobeconsidered.Thecopyofthesaid
judgmentisatExhibit2377.TheHon'bleApexCourtinparagraph90of
thejudgmentcametotheconclusionthattheprovisionsundertheMCOCA
areattractedagainstaccusedNo.7henceheisnotentitledtobereleased
onbail.Butsofarastheremainingaccusedpersonsareconcernedinpara
91ofthejudgmentHon'bleApexCourtobservedthat:
HavingstatedthesaidpositionrelatingtoA7,
whenwecametothecaseofothers,thereisno
disputethatinrespectofotherappellants,their
involvementiswithreferencetothe present
occurrence,namely,Malegaon bombblast.
Admittedlytheyarenot proceededagainstfor
:21:
AdmittedlywhentheHon'bleApexCourtdeliveredthesaid
judgmentNIAwasinvestigatingthematter.Theaboveobservationsofthe
Hon'bleApexCourtshowthatconsideringthechargesheetfiledbyATS
againstaccusedpersonsHon'bleApexCourthadcometotheconclusion
thattherewasnomaterialagainsttheremainingaccusedpersonsexcept
accused No.7 to show their nexus with accused or with the crime
pertainingtotheParbhaniandJalnacases. Theaboveobservationsalso
:22:
showthatHon'bleApexCourtstraightwaydidnotdischargetheaccused
persons from the charges of MCOC because NIA may come with such
materialaftercompletingtheinvestigationtoshownexusofotheraccused
personswithprevioustwocases.
43.
AdmittedlyNIAhasnowcomewiththecasethatthereisno
materialagainstaccusedpersonstoattractthechargesofMCOCA. NIA
hasdroppedthechargesofMCOCA.Ifthisisthepositionthencertainlyat
presentsofarasthisbailapplicationisconcernedithastobesaidthat
thereisnoprimafacie caseagainsttheapplicantinrespectofcharges
underMCOCActbutmatterdoesresthere.
44.
Nextcontroversyisregardingwhetherconfessionalstatements
ofaccusedNos.7,10and12canbelookedintoforthepurposeofthisbail
application. Relying on Nalini's case advocate of intervener submitted
thatevenifaccusedpersonsattheendoftrialacquittedfortheoffence
underMCOCActstilltheirconfessionalstatementscanbeconsideredand
relied upon for the offences under the Indian Penal Code. From the
observationsoftheHon'bleApexCourtincaseof Nalini itemergesthat
confessionalstatementrecordedu/s.15ofTADAisadmissibleagainstco
accusedprovidedthataccusedistriedwithothercoaccusedinthesame
trialinrespectofoffenceunderTADA. ItisfurtherheldbytheHon'ble
ApexCourtthatifaccusedisacquittedattheendoftrialfortheoffences
punishable underthe provisions of TADAstillconfessional statementof
accusedpersoncanbeconsideredandrelieduponforthechargesagainst
accusedpersonsundertheIndianPenalCode.
:23:
45.
Itissubmittedbytheadvocateofintervenerthatconfessional
statementsofcoaccusedcanbereadafteracquittalfromthechargesof
TADAthentheseconfessionalstatementscannotbekeptawayatthisstage
also.
46.
applicationatExhibit2400initiallyinparaNos.27to67ofmyorderby
excludingconfessionalstatementsIhadcometotheconclusionthatthere
arereasonablegroundstobelievethataccusationagainsttheapplicantis
true.ThereafterinviewofreasonsmentionedinparaNos.68to71Ihad
acceptedsubmissionoftheintervenerandtheld.SPPthatconfessional
statement of coaccused can be considered for the purpose of bail
applicationalso.
47.
Butnowcircumstancesarechanged.Atthetimeofdeciding
bailapplicationatExhibit2400therewasnoreportofNIAandstillNIA
was investigating the matter. Now NIA has dropped the charges of
MCOCA.Henceatthisstageforthepurposeofthebailapplicationdefinite
conclusioncanbedrawnthatthereisnoprimafaciecaseagainstaccused
for the offences under MCOC Act. If this is the position then certainly
confessionalstatementswhicharerecordedbypoliceofficerscannotbe
lookedinto.
48.
Ihavealreadypointedoutthatwhiledecidingapplicationat
Exh.2400evenexcludingtheconfessionalstatementsofaccusedNos.7,
10and12Ihadcome tothe conclusion thatthere is prima facie case
:24:
againsttheapplicant.Hencenowithastobeseenwhetherreallythereis
changeincircumstancesoastosaythattherearenogroundsforbelieving
that accusation against the applicant is true. For this purpose it is
necessarytoconsidermaterialcollectedbyATSaswellasnowmaterial
collectedbyI.O.ofNIAduringthecourseoffurtherinvestigation.
49.
InvestigatingofficerofNIAhasdiscussedtheevidenceagainst
theapplicantfrompageNos.31to34inthechargesheetandthencame
to the conclusion that there is no sufficient evidence on record to
prosecutetheapplicant.SofarasthisapplicantisconcernedI.O.ofNIA
seemstohavererecordedstatementsofthreewitnessesandcausedtobe
recordedstatementsoftwowitnessesoutofabovethreeu/s.164ofthe
Code of Criminal Procedure. I.O. has recorded statements of following
threewitnessu/s.161oftheCriminalProcedureCode.
50.
(i)
PW55(PW181new)(pageNos.31to39)
(ii)
PW79(PW182new)(pageNos.41to43)
(ii)
PW112(PW184new)(pageNos.49to55)
I.O.ofNIAcausedtoberecordedstatementsofPW79(182)
andPW112(184)u/s.164oftheCodeofCriminalProcedureandthe
MetropolitanMagistrateDelhihasrecordedtheirstatementsu/s.164of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. At this stage it will appropriate to
mention that I.O. of ATS has also caused to be recorded statements of
abovethreewitnessesu/s.164oftheCodeofCriminalProcedureandthe
MetropolitanMagistrateMumbaihasrecordedtheirstatements.Sofaras
thisapplicantisconcernedexceptabovethereisnoanyotherinvestigation
:25:
donebyI.O.ofNIA.
51.
AnalysisoftheevidenceagainstaccusedNo.1madebyI.O.of
NIAatpageNos.31to34showthatI.O.ofNIAisinagreementwiththe
conclusiondrawnbyATSthatLMLfreedommotorcyclebearingNo.GJ05
BR1920wasusedinthebombblast. I.O.ofNIAhasalsocometothe
conclusionthatsaidmotorcycleisregisteredinthenameofapplicant.
Hence one thing is clear that both the investigating agencies have
concludedthatmotorcycleregisteredinthenameofapplicantisinvolved
inthebombblast.Duetothesereasonssubmissionsadvancedbyadvocate
of accused challenging this aspect cannot be accepted because already
while deciding the previous bail application at Exhibit2400 these
submissions are dealt with and now considering the scope of this
applicationsaidsubmissionscannotbereappreciated.
52.
provided her motor cycle as well as planters for causing bomb blast.
Advocateofapplicantsubmittedthatsincepriortotwoyearsbeforeblast
abscondingaccusedRamchandraKalsangarawasinexclusivepossession
of the said motor cycle hence there was no question of providing said
motorcycleforbombblastbytheapplicant.AccordingtohimI.O.ofNIA
has come to the same conclusion and this is the material change in
circumstance.
53.
AnalysismadebyI.O.ofNIAinrespectofthiscircumstance
showsthatheconsideredthestatementsofPWNos.21,23,30and32/46
:26:
recordedbytheATSofficerandcametotheconclusionthatRamchandra
Kalsangarawasinpossessionofthesaidmotorcycle.
54.
Itispertinenttonotethatsamesubmissionwasadvancedby
the applicant at the time of previous bail application but it was not
accepted. In fact selling of motor cycle and having no concern with it
thoughbeingregisteredowneristhedefenceoftheapplicantwhichshe
hastoestablishduringthetrial.Atthisprimafaciestageshecannotavoid
herconnectionwiththemotorcyclebeingregisteredownerofthesame.I
havealreadypointedoutthatI.O.simplygavehisfindingsonthebasisof
statementsofwitnesseswhicharealreadyrecordedbyATSbutthisaspect
is considered and decided in Exhibit2400. Hence again it cannot be
appreciatedinabsenceofanynewmaterialbroughtbyNIAonrecord.
55.
Sofarasprovidingmotorcycleaswellasplantersforcausing
bombblastbytheapplicantisconcern,statementsofPW22andPW23
were relied while deciding previous bail application at Exhibit2400.
Statement of PW23 recorded by ATS shows that applicant was closely
acquaintedwithwantedaccusedRamjiandshewasinvisitingtermtothe
houseofRamji.AccordingtothiswitnessRamjiwasusingLMLfreedom
motorcycleandRamjihadinformedtothiswitnessthatmotorcyclewas
giventohimbytheapplicant.OnthisbackgroundstatementofPW22is
materialtoconsider.
56.
StatementofPW22showsthatRamjihadcontactedhimon
7.10.2008. AccordingtothiswitnessaspersayofRamjihephonedthe
:27:
applicant.TherewastalkofapplicantandRamjionphoneon7.10.2008.
Thiswitnesshadalsotalkedwiththeapplicantonthatdayandapplicant
hadcalledthiswitnessonthenextdayi.e.on8.10.2008atUjjain.
57.
detaildated8.10.2008.Thiswitnesshadgonetoreceivetheapplicantat
Ujjainrailwaystation.Accordingtothiswitnesstherewastalkbetween
theapplicantandRamjionmobilephoneatrailwaystationalsofor5to7
minutes.Statementofthiswitnessfurthershows thatthenhetookthe
applicant in Mahakal Dharmshala where applicant halted in one room.
Thenwitnesshasgiventheaccountregardingmeetingofapplicantwith
oneArvindJainandthenhestatedaboutthefactofarrivalofRamjiinthe
saidDharmashalatomeettheapplicant.Accordingtothiswitnessinhis
presence there was conversation between the applicant and wanted
accusedRamji.Hisstatementshowsthattheyweretalkingaboutincident
of bomb blast. Absconding accused Ramji Kalsangara admitted his
complicityincausingbombblast. Statementofthiswitnessshowsthat
applicant was having knowledge about this fact. Not only this but
applicantmadeinquirywithRamjiastohowtherewerelesscasualties
thoughhervehiclewasusedforcausingblastandthenRamjisaidthe
reason.Statementofthiswitnessclearlyshowthecomplicityofapplicant
andRamjiincommissionofcrime.Itispertinenttonotethatstatementof
PW22 and PW23 are also recorded u/s. 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure before the Metropolitan Magistrate Bombay and they have
statedthesamefacts.
:28:
58.
were raised for accepting and relying on statement of PW22 but those
objectionswerenotaccepted.
59.
Investigating officerofNIAonpage32ofthechargesheet
ItispertinenttonotethatfilingofthecomplaintbyPW22
:29:
appearsthatinthenameoffurtherinvestigationwithoutcollectingthe
newmaterialonthebasisofstatementsofwitnessesrecordedbyATShe
cametotheconclusioncontrarytotheconclusionalreadydrawnbythis
courtaswellastheHon'bleHighCourt.Certainlythiscannotbesaidasa
changeinthecircumstance.
61.
OnthispointstatementofPW55isalsomaterial.PW55has
stated the fact that he was with Accused No.9 Prasad Purohit at
Panchmadhibetween16.10.2008to20.10.2008.Hefurtherstatedthaton
19.10.2008 when accused No.9 Prasad Purohit received the knowledge
thatthisapplicantwastakenbypoliceaccusedNo.9PrasadPurohitwas
disturbed. This witness has alsostatedaboutthe factof extrajudicial
confession made by accused No.9 Prasad Purohit to him regarding
preparationofbombandcausingbombblastatMalegaonbyusingmotor
cycleprovidedbytheapplicant.Itispertinenttonotethatthiswitnesshas
alsostatedallthesefactsinthestatementrecordedbeforetheMagistrate
u/s.164oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure.
62.
NowinvestigatingofficerofNIAduringthecourseoffurther
:30:
NextallegationagainsttheapplicantbyATSisthatsheisone
ofthemainconspiratorsofthecrime. AspercaseofATSapplicantwas
presentinthemeetingheldatBhopalandinthesaidmeetingapplicant
shoulderedthe responsibilitytoprovide men forcausing bomb blastat
Malegaon. For this purpose statements of PW79 and PW112 are re
recordedbytheinvestigatingofficerofNIA.Theirstatementsu/s.164of
theCodeofCriminalProcedurearealsorecordedbythe Metropolitan
MagistrateDelhi.AtthisstageitispertinenttonotethatATSofficerhas
alsocausedtoberecordedstatementsofthesetwowitnessesu/s.164of
theCodeofCriminalProcedureby MetropolitanMagistrateMumbai.It
meansnowtherearetwocontrarystatementsofthesewitnessesu/s.161
:31:
Atthisstageitwillappropriatetoconsiderthebackgroundon
whichBhopalmeetingwasheld.Bhopalmeetingtookplaceon11.04.2008
and12.04.2008. Priortothataspertheprosecutioncasetherewasa
meeting at Faridabad Anantpur village on 25.01.2008 and 26.01.2008.
TherewasalsoameetinginCalcuttainFebruary2008.Evenasperthe
case of NIA also above meetings had taken place. NIA has also in
agreementwiththeATSofficersthatinBhopalmeetingatSriRamTemple
thisapplicantwaspresent.
65.
Itisnecessarytoconsiderthematerialonrecordonwhich
backgroundsaidBhopalmeetingtookplace.Transcriptsofthemeetingat
Faridabad,Anantpurinfilenamessanatanbharat.WMAdated26.01.2008,
purohit.WMA dated 27.01.2008 and major upadhyay.wma dated
25.01.2008 show that coaccused Swami Amtrutanand, Prasad Purohit,
Ramesh Upadhyay and some others were present in the said meeting
including some of the witnesses. This conversation show the following
things.
(i)
AboveparticipantsinthemeetingwanttoestablishHindu
Rashtrai.e.Aryavart.
(ii)
Discussionalsoshowsthattheywantedtooverawethe
governmentandwantedtoestablishgovernmentinexile.
(iii)
Discussionfurthershowsthattheywerenotreadytoaccept
thepresentconstitutionandwanttoprepareanew
:32:
constitutionsuitedtotheirideology.
(iv)
Thisdiscussionfurthershowsthataboveparticipantswere
oftheviewthatpersonsresistingtheirideologyshouldbe
excommunicatedi.e.shouldbekilled.
66.
ItappearsfromthediscussionthatcoaccusedPrasadPurohit
OnthisbackgroundfurthermeetingatBhopaltookplaceon
:33:
activities.ItisnotablethatwheninvestigatingofficerofNIAreexamined
this witness according to him he had not stated before ATS officer
regardingtalkofPrasadPurohitaboutpreparationof guerrillawarto
taketherevengeofJihadiactivities.
69.
AccordingtoPW112afterpublicmeetingatBhopaltherewas
:34:
NIA this witness has not stated the actual utterance of the applicant
showingherreadinesstoprovidemenforcausingbombblast.
70.
Itispertinenttonotethatthiswitnessiswelleducatedperson
beingdoctor.Notonlythisbutitappearsfromhisstatementthathehas
shoulderedvariousresponsibilitiesinvariousorganizations.Itisnotable
thatnowherethiswitnesshasstatedthatduetothethreatbyATSofficer
he hadgivenstatementbeforeATS officer and beforethe Metropolitan
Magistrate,Mumbai that this applicant had showed her readiness to
providepersonsforcausingbombblastatMalegaon.Inhisreexamination
bytheinvestigatingofficerofNIAhehasstatedthathehadnotstated
abovefacttotheATSofficerandtheMetropolitanMagistrateMumbaiand
hissignatureswereobtainedwithoutshowinghisstatementandwithout
readingthecontentstohim.Accordingtohimatthattimehewasunder
pressure as his name was emerging in the media and his wife was
sufferingfromCancer.
71.
statementbeforetheMetropolitanMagistrateMumbaihehasstatedabout
his presence in Bhopal meeting and he has specifically stated that
wheneverhewasgoing in theroomforservingteaandothereatables
accusedNo.9PrasadPurohitexpressedhisfeelingthatitisnecessaryto
takeimmediateplannedactiontotakerevengeagainstmuslimcommunity.
He has also expressed his opinion that at Malegaon there is muslim
dominatingareaandifbombblastiscausedthereitmayamountoftaking
revenge. PW79hasalsostatedthatapplicantandcoaccusedexpressed
:35:
theirconsentandapplicantshowedherreadinesstoprovidepersonsfor
committingbombblast.Itispertinenttonotethatinhisreexamination
by investigating officer of NIA he has denied his presence in Bhopal
meeting and he has also stated the same fact before the Metropolitan
Magistrate,Delhi.
72.
Atthisprimafaciestagewithoutgoingtothequestionthat
whichversionofthesewitnessesiscorrect,safeconclusioncanbedrawn
onthebasisofstatementofPW112(newPW184)thatinBhopalmeeting
applicant was present and in the said meeting there was a discussion
aboutgrowingJihadiactivitiesinAurangabadandMalegaonandaccused
No.9 asked to do something for its prevention by expanding Abhinav
BharatSanghataninthesaidarea.
73.
IhavealreadypointedoutthebackgroundonwhichBhopal
meetingwasheld.PresenceofthisapplicantinBhopalpublicmeetingas
well as in the meeting held in one room is also transpired in the
:36:
investigationofNIA. AspointedabovestatementofPW112beforeNIA
officeralsoshowsthatinBhopalmeetingtherewasadiscussionabout
Jihadi activities at Aurangabad and Malegaon. On this background
involvement of motor cycle in bomb blast registered in the name of
applicant coupled with conversation of the applicant with absconding
accusedRamchandraKalsangarasubsequenttotheincidentasstatedby
PW22certainlyshowthattherearereasonablegroundsforbelievingthat
the accusation against the applicant is prima facie true. Retraction of
previous statements by PW79 and PW112 during the course of re
examinationbytheinvestigatingofficerofNIAisnotsufficienttosaythat
thereischangeinthecircumstancestoreleasetheapplicantonbail.
75.
Duringthecourseofargumentitissubmittedbyadvocatesof
applicantthatsheissufferingfrombreastcancer.She isdeprivedfrom
righttohavetreatmentofherchoice.Theapplicantisawomanandis
nowunabletowalkwithoutsupport.Advocateofapplicantreliedonthe
medicalcertificatefiledalongwiththisapplicationdated19.03.2016.It
willappropriatetomentionthatthisgroundwasraisedintheapplication
atExh.2400also.Notonlythisbutthesamegroundwasraisedbeforethe
Hon'bleHighCourtinCriminalAppealNo.1305/2013.TheHon'bleHigh
Courtdidnotacceptthesaidgroundanditisspecificallyobservedbythe
Hon'bleHighCourtthatmedicaltreatmentandhelpcanbeprovidedto
theapplicantingovernmenthospital.Medicalreportfiledalongwiththis
application shows that applicant is taking treatment in hospital since
20.11.2013asindoorpatient.Consideringthesefactsgroundofillhealth
raised by the applicant cannot be said as change in circumstance after
:37:
decisiononExhibit2400bythiscourt.
76.
submittedthatsincelastmorethansevenyearsapplicantisinjailhence
on the ground of delay in commencing the trial she is entitled to be
released on bail. In support of this submission advocates of applicant
reliedonthejudgmentoftheHon'bleApexCourtinCriminalAppealNo.
03/2011 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.
7999/2010, State of Kerala V/s. Raneef. Advocates of applicant also
reliedontheauthorityreportedin2005SCC(Criminal)1057Ranjitsing
BrahmajeetsingSharma andanother.Itistruethatapplicantisinjail
sincelong.Butitwillappropriatetomentionthatgroundofdelaywas
raisedbytheapplicantinherpreviousapplicationatExhibit2400aswell
asthisgroundwasalsoraisedbytheapplicantbeforeDivisionBenchof
theHon'bleBombayHighCourtinCriminalAppealNo.1305/2013.This
groundraisedbytheapplicantwasnotaccepted.
77.
NowinviewofthedirectionoftheHon'bleApexCourtthis
specialcourtisconstitutedforthetrialofthecase.NIAhasalsocompleted
the investigation in this matter. The Hon'ble Apex Court has already
expeditedthetrialofthiscase.Hearingonthepointofframingofcharge
is going on. Considering all these facts Ithink that now submission of
advocateofapplicantonthepointofdelaycannotbeaccepted.
78.
prosecutionagencyi.e.NIAhasgivennoobjectiontoreleasetheapplicant
onbailsheshouldbereleasedonbailornot?Subsection(5)ofSection
43DoftheUnlawfulActivities(Prevention)Act,1967saysthatunlessthe
:38:
publicprosecutorhasbeengivenanopportunityofbeingheardnoperson
accusedofoffencepunishableunderChapterIVandVIofUA(P)Actbe
releasedonbail.Provisoofsubsection(5)ofSection43DofUA(P)Act
puttherestrictiononthediscretionofthecourttoreleasetheapplicanton
bailiftherearereasonablegroundsforbelievingthataccusationagainst
suchpersonisprimafacietrue.Itmeansaftergivinganopportunitytothe
publicprosecutortofilesayitismandatoryonthepartofthecourttosee
whethertherearereasonablegroundsforbelievingthataccusationagainst
the accused is prima facie true, irrespective of the fact that public
prosecutorresistedtheapplicationforbailornot.Notonlythisbutsub
section(6)ofSection43DoftheUA(P)Actspecificallysaysthatabove
restrictionongrantingofbailisinadditiontotherestrictionunderthe
CodeofCriminalProcedure.
79.
applicantonbailmainlyonthegroundthatsheisexoneratedbyNIAfrom
all charges levelled against her. It is not disputed that previous bail
application filed by the applicant at Exhibit2400 is rejected on
07.11.2015. Ihavealreadypointedoutthatafterconsideringboththe
reportsi.e.reportofNIAaswellasATSitcannotbesaidthatduetofiling
offurtherreportbyNIAthereisanychangeinthecircumstancesoasto
saythatthereisnoreasonablegroundforbelievingthataccusationagainst
theapplicantisprimafacietrue.Ifthisisthepositionthenmereonthe
groundthatnowNIAhasgivennoobjectionitisdifficulttoacceptprayer
oftheapplicant.
:39:
80.
Moreoveritispertinenttonotethatpreviousbailapplication
oftheapplicantatExhibit2400wasfiledon21.09.2015.NIAhadstrongly
resisted that application by filing say on 08.10.2015. That application
came to be rejected on 07.11.2015. It is pertinent to note that PW55
(New PW 181) is reexamined by the investigating officer of NIA on
14.06.2015. PW79 (New PW182) is reexamined by the investigating
officerofNIAon12.09.2015andPW112(NewPW184)isreexaminedby
theinvestigatingofficerofNIAon17.10.2015.Whatitshowsthatabove
threematerialwitnesseswerereexaminedbytheinvestigatingofficerof
NIAwell beforepassing previous order.Notonlythis PW55andPW79
wereexaminedbytheinvestigatingofficerofNIAevenpriortofilingthe
previous bail application at Exhibit2400. Despite these facts for the
reasons best known to the prosecution at that time NIA had strongly
resistedthebailapplicationoftheapplicantwithoutrelyingthestatements
ofabovewitnessesbeforetheinvestigatingofficerofNIA.Inviewofthese
reasons,nowonlybecauseprosecutioni.e.NIAhasgivennoobjectionitis
difficult to accept the prayer of the applicant. In view of all above
discussion,itisclearthattheapplicantisnotentitledtobereleasedon
bail.Inresultproceedtopassfollowingorder.
ORDER
Application filed by the accused No.1 Pragyasingh
ChandrakantsinghThakur@SadhviatExhibit3021isherebyrejected.
(S.D.TEKALE)
SpecialJudge
underMCOC&NIAAct
CityCivil&SessionsCourt
Gr.Bombay.
:40:
Dictatedon
Transcribedon
Signedon
:28.06.2016.
:28.06.2016.
: