Sei sulla pagina 1di 40

:1:

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.

This is the application for bail filed by accused No.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.

During the course of investigation forensic laboratory Nasik

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.

According to the case of ATS coaccused Prasad Purohit is

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.

As per prosecution case bomb explosion was caused in the

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

charge sheet on 20.01.2009 by Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS) Bombay


investigation was started by National Investigation Agency (NIA), New
Delhi in this matter as per the order of Government of India dated

:6:

01.04.2011. Accordinglyon13.04.2011NIAreregisteredtheoffencein
respectofthesaidincidentasCrimeNo.05/2011.
11.

ItwillappropriatetomentionthatcoaccusedPrasadPurohit

had filed Bail application No.42/2008 on 03.12.2008. By order dated


31.07.2009mylearnedpredecessordischargedpresentapplicantandco
accusedfromtheoffencesunderMCOCActanddirectedtotransferthe
casetotheRegularCourtatNasikasperSection11oftheMCOCAct.The
State being an aggrieved by the said order filed Appeal bearing No.
866/2009beforeHighCourtunderSection12oftheMCOCact.Thesaid
appealwasallowedbytheDivisionBenchofHon'bleHighCourtbyorder
dated19.7.2010andsetasidetheorderofmylearnedpredecessordated
31.7.2009.CasewasrestoredtothefileofthiscourtunderMCOCActfor
decisiononmerit.AccordinglyBailApplicationNo.42/2008filedbyco
accused Prasad Purohit was remanded for hearing to this court. My
learnedpredecessorthereafterrejectedbailapplicationNo.42/2008filed
bycoaccusedPrasadPurohitandtheHon'bleHighCourtalsorejectedthe
bail application of applicant Prasad Purohit by order in Criminal Bail
ApplicationNo.333/2011on09.11.2011.
12.

This applicant and coaccused challenged the order of

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

filed bail application under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal


Procedure. Itisanadmittedfactthatsaidbailapplicationfiledbythe
applicantcametoberejecteduptotheHon'bleApexCourt.Thereafterthis
applicantfiledbailapplicationonmedicalgroundbutthatapplicationwas
alsorejectedbythiscourt. Thenthisapplicantfiledbailapplicationat
Exh.993beforethiscourtforconsiderationofherprayeronmeritbutsaid
applicationcametoberejectedon25.09.2012. Itisnotindisputethat
against that order this applicant preferred an appeal. Initially it was
registeredasCriminalBailApplicationNo.1679/2012intheHon'bleHigh
CourtbutlateronitwasconvertedasCriminalAppealNo.1305/2013.It
is an admitted fact that Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court
dismissedthesaidappealon04.04.2014.

:8:

15.

AfterdecisionoftheHon'bleApexCourtasperExhibit2377

applicanthadfiledapplicationatExh.2400forbailon21.09.2015.That
applicationwasrejectedbythiscourton07.11.2015.
16.

NIAsubmitted the supplementary reportu/s.173(8) of the

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.

Treating the above report by NIA as a change in the

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.

After giving opportunity of hearing to the prosecution and

accused by passing order below Exhibit 3108 intervener i.e. father of


deceased who died in bomb blast was permitted to address the court
throughadvocate.
19.

HeardlearnedadvocatesMishraandMagguforaccusedNo.1,

advocateWahabKhanfortheintervenerandld.SPPRasalforNIA.

:10:

20.

Advocate of accused No.1 submitted that the Hon'ble Apex

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.

He further submitted that PW22 has also retracted his

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

PW55also. In his previous statement before ATSofficer he has stated


aboutextrajudicialconfessionofaccusedNo.9inwhichthereisreference
ofapplicant. Accordingtohimthiswitnesshasfiledacomplaintbefore
theHumanRightsCommissionaboutthreatandtorturebyATSofficersto
extortsuchstatementandcompellinghimtogiveastatementbeforethe
Metropolitan Magistrate. He submitted that now investigating officer of
NIAhasrecordedhisstatementandsaidwitnesshasdeposedthefactof
torture and threat by ATS officers and fact of compelling him to give
statementaspertheirwish. Accordingtohimallabovefactsshowthat
nowthereischangeincircumstanceanditcannotbesaidthatthereis
primafaciematerialagainsttheapplicant.
24.

According to him statement of PW22 and PW23 show that

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:

Narayan Kalsangara. Panchanama dated 01.11.2008 at page 45 of


VolumeIshowthisfact.AccordingtohimasperstatementsofPW185and
186 recorded by investigating officer of NIA in fact ATS officers had
enteredinthehouseofaccusedNo.2throughventilator. Hesubmitted
that PW185 and 186 are the local police officers. According to him it
showsfalseinvestigationbyATSofficers.
26.

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

investigating officer of NIA shows that ATS officers made false


investigation and instead of collecting the evidence created evidence
againsttheapplicant.
29.

AdvocateMaggusubmittedthatallabovefactsanddocuments

filed along with list Exh.3113 and further report of NIA show that
investigationdonebyATSwasnotonlytaintedbutmotivatedforprofit.

:14:

According to him this investigation is resulted in causing injury to the


applicant. Right of the accused to have a fair investigation has been
deprivedbyATS.Hesubmittedthatearlierorderspassedbythiscourtas
wellastheHon'bleHighCourtandtheHon'bleSupremeCourtarepassed
on presumption that the investigation by ATS was fair but now it is
demonstratedthattheinvestigationdonebyATSwasconcocted,falseand
fabricated.Accordingtohiminviewofthesereasonsallorderspreviously
passedhavebecomenonest.
30.

Hefurthersubmittedthatsincefrombeginningaccusedand

witnesseshave agitatedthatATSofficershave madefalse investigation.


Nowgrievancesallegedbytheapplicantandwitnessesatthattimeare
supplementedbyNIA. AccordingtohimDilipPatidarwastakenbyATS
officers on 10.11.2008. Statements of PW22 and other witnesses are
recordedinthesameperiod.TilltodayDilipPatidarismissing.Allthese
factsclearlyindicatethatstatementofPW22andotherwitnessesarenot
voluntarystatement.Accordingtohiminvestigationwasinadirectionto
falselyimplicatetheaccused.Hencenoweightageshouldbegiventothe
investigation done by ATS. According to him witnesses have not filed
complaintagainstNIAsayingthattheyaretorturedasinthecaseofATS.
This aspect also gave credibility to the investigation done by NIA.
According to him there is no need to consider material on record
meticulously at the stage of bail. In short according to advocates of
applicantinviewoftheinvestigationdonebyNIAnowthereisnoprima
faciecaseagainsttheapplicant.

: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.

Advocate of intervener submitted that there is sufficient

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

dropped charges under the provisions of MCOC accused cannot be


discharged. According to him already this court has taken cognizance

: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.

In present case admittedly two investigating agencies have

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.

One limb of the argument was that NIA being a superior

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:

are no reasonable grounds for believing that accusation against the


applicantisprimafacietrue.NIAhasfiledthereportu/s.173(8)ofthe
CodeofCriminalProcedure.Alreadyonthebasisofchargesheetfiledby
ATScognizanceoftheoffencesallegedagainsttheapplicantistakenby
this court. Yet the applicant is not discharged from those offences.
ConsideringthesefactsnowithastobeseenreallythereportfiledbyNIA
issufficienttosaythattherearenoreasonablegroundstobelievethat
accusationagainsttheapplicantisprimafacietrue.
41.

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:

theoffence relatingto ParbhaniandJalna.Butstill


atthepresentjuncture,withthematerialsavailableon
recordasondate,wearenotinpositiontoascertainas
totheinvolvementoftheappellantseither by way of
theirnexuswithanyaccusedwhoisamemberofan
organized crimesyndicateorsuchnexuswiththe
offence of an organized crime which pertains to
ParbhaniandJalna.We cannot also rule out the
possibilityoftheevidencebasedontheinvestigationby
the prosecuting agency to come out with reliable
materialsinsupportofsuchnexustobeshownwithan
accusedor withthecrimeinrespectoftheearlier
two cases, namely Parbhani and Jalna. We cannot,
therefore,declaretotheextent as was done by the
SpecialJudgeintheorderdated31.07.2009to
straightway reach at a conclusion to the effect that
MCOCAwasnotattractedandtherefore,theyshould
bedischarged
42.

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.

It will appropriate to mention that while deciding the bail

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.

Next allegation against the applicant by ATS is that she

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.

Thereafter this witness has stated about whole incident in

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.

While deciding application at Exh.2400 several objections

were raised for accepting and relying on statement of PW22 but those
objectionswerenotaccepted.
59.

Investigating officerofNIAonpage32ofthechargesheet

mentioned above facts which PW22 has stated. According to the


investigating officer of NIA PW22 has made complaint in the court of
Judicial Magistrate Indore on 26.11.2008 stating that he was illegally
detained and tortured by ATS and ATS officers forced him to make
statementu/s.164oftheCodeofCriminalProcedurehencestatement
recordedbyATSisalsoinquestionandthereiseverypossibilitythathe
mayalsoretractfromhisearlierstatement.
60.

ItispertinenttonotethatfilingofthecomplaintbyPW22

was also one of the objections raised by applicant while deciding


applicationatExhibit2400butitwasnotaccepted.Atthisstageitwill
appropriatetomentionthatevenDivisionBenchoftheHon'bleBombay
High Court while deciding Criminal Appeal No.1305/2013 dated
04.04.2014hadreliedthestatementofPW22,PW23,PW43,PW45and
PW46whileconsideringthepointregardingownershipofthemotorcycle
and then in paragraph 28 recorded finding that the above material
available on record clearly indicates that this applicant actively helped
other coaccused by providing motor cycle for explosion of bomb at
Malegaon.
FromtheanalysismadebytheinvestigatingofficerofNIAit

: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

investigation has recorded statement of this witness as PW181. In his


statementbeforeinvestigatingofficerofNIArecordedon14.06.2015this
witnessi.e.PW55hasretractedthestatementgivenbyhimbeforeATS
officer. AccordingtohimduetothethreatgivenbyATSofficerasper
dictationgiventohimhegavepreviousstatementbeforeATSofficeras
well as Metropolitan Magistrate. As this witness has retracted his
statementinvestigatingofficerofNIAonpageNo.34ofthechargesheet

:30:

whileanalyzing the evidence againstthis applicantdisbelievedthe said


witness. It is pertinent to note that while deciding the previous bail
applicationalsocopyofthecomplaintmadebythis witnessbeforethe
MaharashtraHumanRightsCommissionwasfiledonrecord.Despitethis
fact his statement was accepted as an additional material against the
applicant.NowinvestigatingofficerofNIAhasdiscardedhisstatementon
thesamegroundandonthegroundthatbeforehimalsothiswitnesshas
retractedhisearlierstatement.Nowpositionbecamethatthiswitnesshas
madecontrarystatementsbeforetwoinvestigatingofficersu/s.161ofthe
CodeofCriminalProcedurebutthereisstatementofthiswitnessrecorded
by the Metropolitan Magistrate Mumbai before whom this witness has
statedabovefacts.Ithinkthatatthisprimafaciestagestatementmade
before the Metropolitan Magistrate Mumbai u/s. 164 of the Code of
CriminalProcedureisrequiredtobegivenmoreweightage.
63.

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:

of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as there are two contrary


statementsofthesewitnessesu/s.164oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure.
64.

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

had stated to the participants about his contact in Israel for


implementation of their ideology. This discussion further shows that
accordingtoaboveaccusedthereshouldnotbeplaceformusliminHindu
Rashtra and they were also planning about formation of Ministry. This
discussionalsoshowsthatlistof70personswaspreparedbycoaccused
PrasadPurohitwhoweretobeexcommunicated.Thisdiscussionshows
the object and mind set of coaccused who were present in the said
meeting.
67.

OnthisbackgroundfurthermeetingatBhopaltookplaceon

11th and12th April2008. StatementsofPW112and118showthatthey


werecalledinthesaidmeetingandwhentheyreachedatBhopaltheysaw
postersofobjectionableslogansregardingmuslimcommunitywhichwas
dislikedtoPW112.Itispertinenttonotethatthesefactsarealsostated
byPW112(New184)inhisstatementbeforeinvestigatingofficerofNIA.
68.

As per the statement of PW112 before ATS officer in

Faridabad meeting coaccused Prasad Purohit had talked about Jihadi


activitiesinMaharashtraatAurangabadandMalegaonandhehadalso
talked regarding preparation of guerrilla war to take revenge of such

:33:

activities.ItisnotablethatwheninvestigatingofficerofNIAreexamined
this witness according to him he had not stated before ATS officer
regardingtalkofPrasadPurohitaboutpreparationof guerrillawarto
taketherevengeofJihadiactivities.
69.

AccordingtoPW112afterpublicmeetingatBhopaltherewas

a meeting in one room and in the said meeting accused Swami


Amrutanand, Prasad Purohit, Ramesh Upadhyay, Sameer Kulkarni,
Sudhakar Chaturvedi, applicant and some other persons were present.
StatementofPW112beforeATSofficershowsthataccordingtohiminthe
saidmeetingaccusedNo.9PrasadPurohittalkedaboutimmediateaction
fortakingrevengeagainstmuslimandhealsogaveopinionthatMalegaon
inMaharashtraismuslimdominatingareahenceifbombblastiscaused
thereitmayamountoftakingtherevenge. Accordingtohimthereafter
thisapplicantreactedbysayingthatsheisreadytoarrangepersonsfor
doingsuchact.
Itispertinenttonotethatinreexaminationofthiswitnessby
the investigating officer of NIA he retracted from this part of the
statement.Butitisnotablethatthiswitnesshasreiteratedthefactbefore
the investigating officer of NIA also that in the said meeting issue of
growingJihadiactivitiesinAurangabadandMalegaonofMaharashtrawas
discussed.AccordingtohiminthesaidmeetingaccusedNo.9explained
about Jihadi activities in detail and asked to do something for its
prevention by expanding the Abhinav Bharat Sanghatan in said area.
Whatitshowsthatduringreexaminationbytheinvestigatingofficerof

: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.

So far as PW79 is concerned before ATS officer and in his

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.

Sofar as criminal conspiracy is concerned it is settledthat

criminal conspiracy can be proved either by direct evidence or by


circumstantial evidence or by both. In absence of direct evidence
circumstances proved before, during and after occurrence have to be
consideredtodecideaboutthecomplicityoftheaccused.Fortheoffence
punishableu/s.120BoftheIndianPenalCodeitisnotnecessarytoprove
thatperpetratorsexpresslyagreedtodoorcausedtobedoneillegalact.
Thisagreementmaybeprovedbynecessaryimplication.
74.

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.

During the course of argument advocates of applicant

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.

Now question is whether merely on the ground that

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.

In present case NIA has given no objection to release the

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.
: