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

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.