advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) apart from the offences punishable under Section 120 B, 121, 122 B, 123 r/w 34 of IPC, Sections Section 25 (1A), (1B) and 25(1AA) of the Arms Act and Section 9-B of the Explosives Act, Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the Explosive Substances Act.= As per the law declared by this Court, Section 20A is mandatory and any violation of the procedure prescribed therein would vitiate the entire proceedings with respect to the TADA offences. This Court in Izharul Haq Abdul Hamid Shaikh v. State of Gujarat reported in (2009) 5 SCC 283 released the Appellant therein on bail on the ground that Section 20A (1) was violated. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Appellant is entitled to be released on bail only on the ground that the FIR was registered on 16.07.1993 in violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 20A (1) of the TADA Act. There is no dispute about the fact that the Appellant has been in jail for more than 12 years and charges are not framed till date which itself is a ground for bail. (See: Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar v C.B.I (2014)4 SCALE 74; Bal Krishna Pandey Alias Vidur V State of U.P. (2003)12SCC186; Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta v. CBI, (2012) 4 SCC 134) Taking note of the above and the fact that the Appellant has been granted bail by this court in Criminal Appeal No. 1650 of 2011, we grant relief of bail to the Appellant subject to the following conditions:

                                                         [pic]Non-Reportable

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1702 of 2011

UMARMIYA ISMAILMIYA SAIYED @ MAMUMIYA PANJU MIYA.
                                                              .... Appellant
                                   Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                                ….Respondent

                               J U D G M E N T


L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
       The  Court  of  Designated  Judge  (TADA)  at  Jamnagar  (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Designated Court’) dismissed  the  bail  application  of
the Appellant  by  a  Judgment  dated  31.08.2010  aggrieved  by  which  the
Appellant has filed this Criminal Appeal.
FIR No.I-151 of 1993 was registered in Jamnagar  City  “B”  Division  Police
Station  under  Sections  3,  4  and  5  of  the  Terrorist  and  Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987(hereinafter referred to  as  ‘Act’)  apart
from the offences punishable under Section 120 B, 121, 122 B, 123 r/w 34  of
IPC, Sections Section 25 (1A), (1B) and 25(1AA) of the Arms Act and  Section
9-B of the Explosives Act, Sections 3, 4,  5,  6  and  9  of  the  Explosive
Substances Act.
The case of the prosecution is that after demolition of the Babri Masjid  in
the  year  1992,  a  conspiracy  was  hatched  at  Dubai  for  smuggling  of
contraband goods, arms and explosives to the sea  cost  of  Gosa  Bara  near
Porbandar.  Harun Adam Sanghar, Usman Umar Koreja and others  were  arrested
on the basis of information received by the police.  On the basis  of  their
statements, FIR was registered in Jamnagar City “B” Division Police  Station
vide  crime  register  No.151  of  1993.  The  Appellant  masterminded   the
conspiracy for smuggling a large quantity of  arms  and  ammunition.   After
supervising the landing of the ammunition, the Appellant absconded  and  was
arrested on 12.01.2005.
The Appellant filed Criminal Misc (Bail) application No. 380 of 2010 on  the
ground that a prima facie case was  not  made  out  against  him  and  prior
approval was not taken from the  District  Superintendent  of  Police  under
Section 20A (1) of the Act  which  vitiated  the  entire  proceedings.   The
Appellant submitted before the Designated  Court  that  a  co-accused  Usman
Gani Noor Mohamad Merchant alias Munna was granted  bail  on  13.03.1996  on
the ground of violation of Section 20A (1) of the Act, which  was  confirmed
by this Court by an order dated 30.04.1996 in SLP(Crl.) No. 981/96.
The Designated Court dismissed  the  bail  application  by  an  order  dated
31.08.2010 on  the  ground  that  the  Appellant  was  involved  in  serious
offences and his enlargement on bail would be detrimental  to  the  interest
of the society.
The principal contention  of  Mr.  Sushil  Kumar,  learned  Senior  Counsel,
appearing for the Appellant is  that  no  prior  approval  of  the  District
Superintendent of Police was taken under Section 20A (1)  of  the  TADA  Act
before recording the FIR.  He relied upon the judgments  of  this  Court  in
Izharul Haq Abdul Hamid Shaikh  v.  State  of  Gujarat  (2009)  5  SCC  283,
Ashrafkhan v. State of Gujarat (2012) 11 SCC 606 and  Hussein  Ghadially  v.
State of Gujarat (2014) 8 SCC 425.   The Counsel further submitted that  the
Appellant is entitled to be released on bail.   He  further  submitted  that
the FIR was registered on 16.07.1993 and after  a  lapse  of  more  than  23
years charges have not been framed till date.
Mr.Yashank Adhyaru, learned Senior Counsel  appearing  for  the  Respondent-
State of Gujarat submitted that the Appellant  is  not  entitled  for  being
released on bail in view of his involvement in serious offences under  TADA,
IPC, Arms Act, Explosives Act and  Explosive  Substances  Act.   He  further
submitted that the Appellant absconded for a period of 10 years and  in  the
event of his being released on  bail,  there  is  every  likelihood  of  his
fleeing  from  justice.    He  also  expressed  his  apprehension  that  the
Appellant would indulge in tampering with the evidence and  witnesses  which
would result in obstruction of justice.  Mr.Adhyaru justified the  delay  in
the framing of charges on the ground that the record has been lying in  this
Court for the past five years.
We have considered the submissions made by the counsels  appearing  for  the
parties.   As per the law declared by this Court, Section 20A  is  mandatory
and any violation of the procedure  prescribed  therein  would  vitiate  the
entire proceedings with  respect  to  the  TADA  offences.   This  Court  in
Izharul Haq Abdul Hamid Shaikh v. State of Gujarat reported in (2009) 5  SCC
283 released the Appellant therein on bail on the ground  that  Section  20A
(1) was violated.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, we  are  of  the
opinion that the Appellant is entitled to be released on bail  only  on  the
ground that the FIR  was  registered  on  16.07.1993  in  violation  of  the
procedure prescribed under Section 20A (1) of the TADA Act.    There  is  no
dispute about the fact that the Appellant has been in jail for more than  12
years and charges are not framed till date which  itself  is  a  ground  for
bail. (See: Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar v C.B.I (2014)4 SCALE 74; Bal  Krishna
Pandey Alias Vidur V State of  U.P.  (2003)12SCC186;  Dipak  Shubhashchandra
Mehta v. CBI, (2012) 4 SCC 134)


Taking note of the above and the fact that the Appellant  has  been  granted
bail by this court in Criminal Appeal No. 1650 of 2011, we grant  relief  of
bail to the Appellant subject to the following conditions:

The Appellant will furnish a bail bond in the sum of   Rs.1 lakh  (One  Lakh
only) with one surety for a similar amount.

The Appellant will reside at Porbandar and report  daily  to  the  City  ‘B’
Division Police Station,  Porbandar  at  6:00PM.  He  shall  not  leave  the
territory of Porbandar.

Whenever  the  Appellant  is  required  to  attend  proceedings  before  the
Designated Court for the purposes  of  Special  TADA  case  No.  2  of  2005
arising from C.R.  No.II-151/93  received  at  Jamnagar  City  “B”  Division
Police Station dated 16.07.93, the Appellant’s  attendance  may  be  secured
through video conferencing which has to  be  organized  by  the  State.   If
video conferencing cannot  be  arranged,  the  Appellant  will  be  produced
before the Designated Court  or  any  other  court,  if  necessary,  through
Escort by the Police.

The Passport of the Appellant shall  be  surrendered  before  the  Court  of
Designated Judge (TADA) at Porbandar.

The Appellant shall not indulge in tampering of evidence and influencing  of
witnesses.

The State is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail, if  the  Appellant
is found to be tampering with the  evidence  or  causing  hindrance  to  the
progress of the trial.



The Registry is directed to transmit the  record  to  the  Designated  Court
immediately. The Designated Court  is  directed  to  frame  charges  at  the
earliest  and  dispose  of  the  matter  expeditiously.   With   the   above
directions, the Appeal is allowed.


........................................J
       [S. A. BOBDE]



                    ..……................................J
                                                   [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

New Delhi,
February 01, 2017

                           -----------------------
6


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.