Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jahir Hak vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 March, 2021
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14646/2020
Jahir Hak S/o Jafarulla @ Jafar Hak, Aged About 36 Years, Lala
Lajpat Roy Colony, Stree No. 2, Near Faruk Bhai's House, Upper
Nahar, P.s. Pratapnagar, Jodhpur. (In Judicial Custody At Central
Jail Jodhpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr J.S.Choudhary Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr Gaurav Singh - PP
Mr Om Prakash Ujjwal, Addl. SP ATS
Jodhpur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order 24/03/2021 The petitioner is arrested in connection with FIR No.113/2014 of Police Station, Pratapnagar, Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 10,13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 20, 23 and 38 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short 'the Act of 1967' hereinafter). He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 4, 5, 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act of 1908' hereinafter); under Sections 16, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 20, 23, 38 of the Act of 1967 and under Sections 120B, 121, 121A and 122 I.P.C. (Downloaded on 25/03/2021 at 08:43:12 PM)
(2 of 6) [CRLMB-14646/2020] As per the prosecution story, it is alleged that accused Sakib Ansari son of Aslam Ansari was apprehended by the police in Case No.54/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 471, 482B, 489C, 120B IPC read with Sections 16, 18, 19, 20 of the Act of 1967 and under Sections 3, 4, & 5 of the Act of 1908 and several other offences registered at Police Station, Special Cell, Lodi Colony, New Delhi.
During the course of interrogation, accused - Sakib Ansari informed the police that explosive material was provided to him by one Barkat Ali son of Liyaqat Ali, resident of Jodhpur and when the police raided the house of Barkat Ali, huge quantity of explosive was found there. After investigation, the police concluded that the banned organization - Indian Mujahideen is planning to conduct certain bomb blasts in various States of India and found involvement of the petitioner in hatching conspiracy with other accused-persons.
The Police concluded that two co-accused persons viz. Mohammed Maruf and Mohammed Ammar came to Jodhpur and met with the petitioner and other co-accused persons and planned to do certain terrorist activities in State of Rajasthan. It is claimed by the prosecution that the said co-accused persons were in contact with active members of Indian Mujahideen viz. Iqbal Bhatkal and Riyaz Bhatkal, who are living in Pakistan and under their instructions, they recruited members of Indian Mujahideen at Jodhpur and the petitioner was also recruited as one of the members.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution has falsely implicated the petitioner in this case. It is submitted that from the charge-sheet, it appears that the (Downloaded on 25/03/2021 at 08:43:12 PM) (3 of 6) [CRLMB-14646/2020] prosecution agency has implicated the petitioner only due to the fact that being recruited as a member of the Indian Mujahideen he attended a meeting held in Mandore Garden, Jodhpur some time in year 2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that simply attending a meeting of group of people ipso facto will not result in treating the petitioner as a terrorist or resulted into commission of crime for which charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 08.05.2014 and since then he is jail, whereas trial against him is going on and till date the evidence of prosecution has not been completed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that one of the co-accused persons Adil Ansari has already been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in such circumstances, the petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. K.A.Najeeb reported in 2021(2)BLJ 142. He has also placed reliance on a decision of Bombay High Court in The National Investigation Agency vs. Areeb Ejaz Majeed (Criminal Appeal No.389/2020) decided on 23.02.2021 Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that from the charge- sheet, it is clear that sufficient evidence against the petitioner for commission of offences for which, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner, was collected by the police. It is submitted that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons hatched a (Downloaded on 25/03/2021 at 08:43:12 PM) (4 of 6) [CRLMB-14646/2020] conspiracy to conduct several bomb blasts in various States and in that relation, huge quantity of explosive material was recovered by the police from the custody of co-accused Barkat Ali and Sakib Ansari. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner was active member of banned organization Indian Mujahideen and was very much active in hatching conspiracy of conducting bomb blasts and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner is innocent.
Learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that one co- accused person viz. Ashraf Ali was appointed as the head of Sleeper Cell Module of Indian Mujhahideen at Jodhpur and he was in constant touch with co-accused persons viz. Barkat Ali and Sakib Ansari from whose possession, huge quantity of explosives was recovered and was also in constant touch with the terrorist based in Pakistan viz. Mohd. Ata and Riyaz Bhatkal. It is submitted that from the call details, it reveals that the petitioner was in constant touch with the co-accused Ashraf Ali from 04.04.2013 to 06.03.2014 and he had long conversation with him on mobile phone for about 31 times. It is submitted that the period running from April 2013 to March 2014 was the period during which the accused-persons had conspired to conduct several bomb blasts. Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, argued that from the said piece of evidence, it is more than clear that the petitioner was an active member of banned organization and hatched a conspiracy to conduct certain bomb blasts in various States of India.
Learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that in view of the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 43D of the Act of 1967 no accused person can be released on bail without (Downloaded on 25/03/2021 at 08:43:12 PM) (5 of 6) [CRLMB-14646/2020] recording a finding that accusation against such person is prima facie not true. However, in the present case, ample evidence to prove a prima facie case against the petitioner is available, hence, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
From perusal of the charge-sheet, it appears that huge quantity of explosive was recovered by the police at Delhi as well as at Jodhpur. From the call details produced by the learned Public Prosecutor, it appears that the petitioner was in constant touch with one of the co-accused persons Ashraf Ali, who allegedly was appointed as head of Sleeper Cell Module of Indian Mujahideen at Jodhpur and was in constant touch with the alleged terrorists based in Pakistan. The prosecution agency verified that the SIM from which the petitioner used to talk to co-accused Ashraf Ali was issued in his name.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the charge-sheet and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was in constant touch with one of the co-accused persons Ashraf Ali, who happened to be the head of the Sleeper Cell Module of Indian Mujahideen, at this stage, it is difficult to form an opinion that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the petitioner is prima facie not proved.
So far as case of co-accused Adil Ansari is concerned, it stands on different footing as charge-sheet against him was filed for the offences punishable under Section 212 IPC and Section 19 of the Act of 1967 and the allegation against him was only to the effect that he had helped the co-accused Barkat Ali in his fleeing. The police had failed to collect any other evidence against Adil Ansari of this effect that he was a member of the banned (Downloaded on 25/03/2021 at 08:43:12 PM) (6 of 6) [CRLMB-14646/2020] organization Indian Mujahideen or was in constant touch with office bearers of that organization.
The facts of the cases of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Bombay High Court, on which the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, are distinguishable from the facts of this case, hence, they are of no help to the petitioner.
In view of the above discussion, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail is rejected, however, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is in custody since April 2014, it is expected that the trial court shall expedite the trial and will make every endeavour to conclude it at the earliest.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 2-masif/-PS (Downloaded on 25/03/2021 at 08:43:12 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)