IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1650 of 2011
UMARMIA ALIAS MAMUMIA…. Appellant(s)
STATE OF GUJARAT….Respondent
J U D G M E N T
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
This Appeal is filed opposite a Judgment antiquated 16.06.2010 in Criminal Misc Sr. No.44 of 2010 by that a Court of Designated Judge (TADA) during Porbandar (hereinafter referred to as a ‘Designated Court’) deserted a bail focus filed by a Appellant underneath Section 439 Cr.P.C. and Section 20 (8) of a Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as a ‘Act’).
2. Crime No. I-43 of 1994 was purebred underneath Section 154 Cr.P.C. for offences committed underneath Section 121, 121A, 122, 123, 124B r/w 34 of a Indian Penal Code, Section 25 (1A), (1B) and 25(1AA) of a Arms Act, Sections 9-B of a Explosives Act, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of a Explosive Substances Act and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of a Act. The matter of one Suresh available underneath Section 108 of a Customs Act suggested that bomb substances, powder RDX boxes, bags containing glow arms, 45 bags of weapons, 15 boxes of RDX and 225 pieces of china ingots were smuggled into a nation and taken to Zaroli and Dhanoli villages of Valsad District. The initial charge-sheet was filed on 12.01.1995 in that a name of a Appellant is found during sequence No.1 in mainstay No.2 that refers to persons who were absconding. The 11th extra Charge-sheet was filed on 06.06.2005 wherein it was mentioned a Appellant was arrested during 1700 hrs on 10.12.2004.
3. The impasse of a Appellant in a crime was set out in fact in a charge-sheet antiquated 06.06.2005. The Appellant conspired with Iqbal A Hussain and others sent by Mustapha Majnu Sheikh from Mumbai during his chateau during Memonwada, Porbandar and finalized a devise to unpack a ammunition. It was mentioned, inter alia, that a Appellant was benefaction during a time of smoothness of RDX, weapons etc. and he supervised a ride of some weapons to his house. The rest of a element was installed in 3 tempos and was sent to Ghanoli village. Thereafter a Appellant fled divided to Dubai.
4. On 17.12.2010 a Appellant filed Criminal Misc. Application No.44 of 2010 in TADA box No. 3 of 2005 in a Designated Court seeking bail underneath Section 439 Cr.P.C. review with Section 20 (8) of Act. The Designated Court by a visualisation antiquated 16.06.2010 discharged a bail focus and hold that on examination of a element on record, a prima facie box of Appellant’s impasse in critical offences underneath TADA was finished out. The Designated Court refused to recover a Appellant on bail after examining his confessional matter available underneath Section 15(2) TADA. The Court also took note of a fact that a Appellant absconded for 10 years from 08.03.1994 to 10.12.2004. Likelihood of tampering of justification and witnesses being shabby were also drift that were taken into care by a Designated Court to repudiate bail. The Appellant filed this interest severe a effect of a pronounced visualisation antiquated 16.06.2010 of a Designated Court.
5. Mr. Sushil Kumar, schooled Senior Counsel appearing for a Appellant submitted that a whole record are debauched due to no before capitulation being taken from a District Superintendent of Police underneath Section 20A (1) of a TADA Act before registration of First Information Report. He serve submitted that 192 witnesses have been cited out of whom usually 25 witnesses have been examined so distant and there is no odds of a execution of a hearing in a nearby future. He also settled that many of a other indicted have possibly been expelled on bail or had a advantage of a record opposite them being quashed. He pleaded for extend of bail in perspective of his prolonged bonds for some-more than 12 years. To strut his acquiescence a warn relied on a 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.
6. Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, schooled Senior Counsel appearing for a Respondent-State of Gujarat finished an try to remonstrate us that permit was, in fact, postulated underneath Section 20A (1). According to him, there was an blunder in a sequence antiquated 08.04.1994 that mentioned that capitulation was postulated underneath Section 20A (2). He submitted that a plain reading of a pronounced sequence would divulge that a capitulation was indeed postulated underneath Section 20A (1). He urged that a Appellant is a master mind of a swindling that resulted in bootlegging of vast scale arms and ammunition into a country. He submitted that there is each odds of a Appellant journey justice, if expelled on bail.
7. Section 20-A of a Act reads as under:
“20-A. Cognizance of offence.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in a Code, no
information about a elect of an corruption under
this Act shall be available by a military though a prior
approval of a District Superintendent of Police.
(2) No justice shall take knowledge of any corruption under
this Act though a before permit of a Inspector
General of Police, or as a box might be, the
Commissioner of Police.”
8. In Izharul Haq Abdul Hamid Shaikh’s box (Supra) this Court postulated bail to a Appellant therein. In a pronounced box also a FIR was purebred on 08.03.1994 relating to a bootlegging of arms and ammunition during Porbandar. This Court hold that before capitulation underneath Section 20A (1) of a Act was a sine qua non for recording of First Information Report. The Appellant therein was postulated service on a belligerent that before capitulation was not performed before recording a FIR. The acquiescence of Mr. Sushil Kumar, who seemed for a Appellant in that case, that before capitulation underneath Section 20A (1) was not accorded by a efficient management was supposed by Mr. Adhyaru who seemed for a State of Gujarat in that case. Mr.Adhyaru’s acquiescence in Izharul Haq Abdul Hamid Shaikh’s box that yet a sequence of capitulation poorly mentioned Section 20A(2) it was indeed an sequence underneath Section 20A(1), was not accepted. Mr. Adhyaru lifted a same indicate again before us relying on sequence antiquated 08.03.1994. We available a Senior Counsel to review out a sequence antiquated 08.03.1994 though we are not assured that it was upheld underneath Section 20A(1) and not underneath Section 20A(2).
9. It is no some-more res integra that infringement of Section 20A (1) of a TADA Act would corrupt a whole record and outcome in exculpation of a indicted for offences underneath a Act. (See: Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, (1995) 5 SCC 302; Prakash Kumar v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 2 SCC 409; Izharul Haq Abdul Hamid Shaikh v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 5 SCC 283; Ashrafkhan v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 11 SCC 606; Hussein Ghadially v. State of Gujarat, (2014) 8 SCC 425)
10. After deliberation a submissions of both sides, we are of a opinion that a Appellant is entitled to be expelled on bail for a following reasons:
A. The before capitulation compulsory underneath Section 20A (1) of a TADA Act was not taken from a District Superintendent of Police before a FIR was recorded.
B. Admittedly, a Appellant had been pang bonds for some-more than 12 years.
C. Only 25 out of 192 witnesses have been examined so far.
D. There is no odds of a execution of hearing in a nearby future.
E. Though there is a confessional matter of a Appellant available underneath Section 15 of a TADA, a same can't be looked into by us in perspective of a defilement of Section 20A (1) of a TADA Act.
11. This Court has consistently recognized a right of a indicted for a rapid trial. Delay in rapist hearing has been hold to be in defilement of a right guaranteed to an indicted underneath Article 21 of a Constitution of India. (See: Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731; Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616) Accused, even in cases underneath TADA, have been expelled on bail on a belligerent that they have been in jail for a prolonged duration of time and there was no odds of a execution of a hearing during a earliest. (See: Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 9 SCC 252 and Babba v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569).
12. Though a Appellant is concerned in critical offences and has absconded for a duration of 10 years before he was arrested in 2004, we see no reason to obstruct him to jail as he has already suffered some-more than 12 years in control and a hearing might not be finished in a nearby future. Taking note of a above, we extend service of bail to a Appellant theme to a following conditions:
a. The Appellant will allow a bail bond in a sum of Rs.1 lakh (One Lakh only) with one collateral for a identical amount.
b. The Appellant will reside during Porbandar and news daily to a City ‘B’ Division Police Station, Porbandar during 6:00 PM. He shall not leave a domain of Porbandar.
c. If a Appellant is compulsory to attend any Court outward Porbandar a same might be finished by video conferencing to be orderly by a State. If video conferencing can't be organised a Appellant will be constructed before any court, if necessary, by Escort by a Police.
d. The Passport of a Appellant shall be surrendered before a Designated Court.
e. The Appellant shall not indulge in tampering of justification and conversion of witnesses.
f. The State is during autocracy to pierce for termination of bail, if a Appellant is found to be tampering with a justification or causing interruption to a swell of a trial.
13. As a box pertains to a year 1993, a Designated Court is requested to assist and finish a hearing during a earliest. With a above directions, a Appeal is allowed.
[S. A. BOBDE]
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
February 01, 2017