9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of bail petitions. 2. Validity and admissibility of confessional statements. 3. Application of precedents and legal principles regarding bail under TADA. Summary: Issue 1: Dismissal of Bail Petitions The appeals arise from the judgments and orders dated 8.9.2006 and 10.8.2006 by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, which dismissed the bail petitions of the appellants. The appellants were implicated in an FIR lodged on 4.4.2003 for offences u/s 120(B), 121, 121(A), 122, and 123 of the IPC and Sections 25(1)(b), 25(1)(c), 27, and 29 of the Arms Act. The appellants were arrested based on allegations of conspiracy and involvement in terrorist activities post-Godhra massacre. Issue 2: Validity and Admissibility of Confessional Statements The chargesheets were filed against the first appellant on 10.9.2003 and the second appellant on 21.1.2004. Confessional statements of various accused, including the appellants, were recorded, leading to the recovery of arms from the first appellant. The appellants argued that no overt act was attributed to them, confessions were obtained post-arrest, and the recovery of weapons alone would not lead to a conviction under TADA. They also contended that the confessions were recorded in similar language, raising doubts about their credibility. The court referred to precedents such as Simon and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2004) 1 SCC 74 and S.N. Dube v. N.B. Bhoir 2000 CriLJ 830, emphasizing the importance of voluntary and properly recorded confessions. The court noted that irregularities in recording confessions might be curable and admissible in evidence, as seen in State of Tamil Nadu through Superintendent of Police CBI/SIT v. Nalini and Ors. 1999 CriLJ 3124. Issue 3: Application of Precedents and Legal Principles Regarding Bail Under TADA The appellants cited various judgments, including Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India and Ors. 1996 CriLJ 1866 and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru 2005 CriLJ 3950, to argue for bail. The court acknowledged that detailed reasons should be avoided in bail orders to prevent prejudice but emphasized that bail applications involving state security should ordinarily be rejected. The court highlighted the classification of undertrials in Shaheen Welfare Association and noted that a strong prima facie case existed against the appellants, involving allegations of training in Pakistan, monetary support, and possession of arms. The court concluded that releasing the appellants could hamper the trial and securing their presence might be challenging. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, directing the Designated Judge to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months, emphasizing the strong prima facie case and potential risks to the trial process if the appellants were released on bail.
|
