Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (5) TMI 792

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n with FIR 113/2014 of Police Station Pratapnagar, Jodhpur for offences punishable Under Sections 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 20, 23 and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short 'Act of 1967'). 2. A chargesheet came to be filed against the Appellant on 17.09.2014. Charges have been framed against the Appellant on 29.01.2018. It is not in dispute that the Appellant has been in custody for a period of almost 8 years. As far as stage of the case is concerned, examination of only 6 witnesses have been completed. The seventh witness is being examined. Ms. Pragati Neekra, learned Counsel for the State, does not dispute the fact that there are 109 witnesses. Without much dispute, it can be found that the Ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ort is dated 20.12.2021. 5. Thereafter, again, this matter was taken up on 19.01.2022. On the said date, the following order was passed: After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that interest of justice requires that the State places an affidavit before us indicating the position of the other Accused with charges against them and the difference, if any, between the Petitioner and the other Accused. The affidavit shall also indicate about the need for any measures to protect the witnesses who will depose in the trial. The affidavit shall be file on or before 24.01.2022. The Petitioner will be free to file affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit which we have ordered the State to file. List the matter on 25.01. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pprehension has not been raised during the past eight years and it is frivolous and there is no threat from the Petitioner. This is besides reiterating that there is no material against the Petitioner whereas the learned Counsel for the State would, on her part, reiterate that it is a matter where very serious offences are alleged and is not a case where bail may be granted to the Petitioner. She further would point out that the trial is progressing and the State is also taking effective steps for an early disposal of the matter. We are of the view that in the facts of this case, when the Petitioner has already spent nearly 8 years in custody, the appropriate order to pass would be to first direct the examination of the three witnesses wh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppears to be largely the fact that he was found to be in touch with one of the Accused and which is sought to be made good by conversations which the Appellant is alleged to have engaged in with that Accused on 31 occasions, who is a co-villager. According to the Respondent, the said Accused is the head of a sleeper cell module of Indian Mujahideen. 9. We bear in mind the judgment of this Court reported in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) (3) SCC 713. Therein, the following observations cannot be overlooked: 12. Even in the case of special legislations like the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 or the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the NDPS Act") which too have somewhat rigorous condit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appearing on behalf of the State, the Court was dealing with an order passed by the High Court granting bail, whereas, in this case, the converse is true, that is, the impugned order is one rejecting the application for bail. The fact remains that the Appellant has been in custody as an undertrial prisoner for a period of nearly 8 years already. The Appellant, it may be noted, is charged with offences, some of which are punishable with a minimum punishment of 10 years and the sentence may extend to imprisonment for life. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also points out that one of the co-Accused namely Shri Aadil Ansari has been released on bail on 30.09.2020 by this Court. No doubt, in this regard, we keep in mind the submission of the St .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates