Supreme Court of India
Moulvi Hussain Ibrahim Umarji vs State Of Gujarat on 17 March, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(2)BLJR943, 2004CRILJ3348, (2004)2GLR1313, JT2004(4)SC536, 2004(3)SCALE355, (2004)3SCC444, 2004(2)UJ954(SC), 2004 AIR SCW 3954, 2004 (3) SCC 444, 2004 CRI. L. J. 3348, (2004) 2 GUJ LR 1313, (2004) 28 OCR 103, (2004) 2 PAT LJR 168, (2004) 1 SIM LC 458, (2004) 2 ALLCRIR 1471(1), (2004) 3 SCALE 355, 2004 ALLMR(CRI) 2501, (2004) 2 JLJR 144, (2004) 3 GCD 1788 (SC), (2004) 20 INDLD 97, (2004) 1 JCJR 127(1) (SC), 2005 BOMCRSUP 160, 2004 BLJR 2 943, (2004) 3 ALLCRILR 778, 2004 UJ(SC) 2 954, (2004) 2 SUPREME 493, 2004 CHANDLR(CIV&CRI) 387, (2004) 2 CRIMES 1, (2004) 4 JT 536 (SC), 2004 SCC (CRI) 829, AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 4899
Author: G.P. Mathur
Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, Arun Kumar, G.P. Mathur
JUDGMENT G.P. Mathur, J.
1. An incident took place at about 7.45 a.m. on 27.2.2002 when the Sabarmati Express was stopped near Godhra Railway Station and a coach was set on fire resulting in death of 59 persons and serious injuries to 48 others. The petitioner herein was arrested in connection with the said offence on 6.2.2003 and is charged for committing offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 337, 338, 435, 186, 120(b), 153(a), 302, 307, 395, 397 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2) and Section 3(3) of the POTA, and Sections 141, 151 and 152 of the Indian Railways Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Properties Act. He moved an application for being enlarged on bail, which was rejected by the learned Special Judge (POTA) on 7.7.2003 and the appeal preferred by him against the said order was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 2.8.2003. The present Special Leave Petition has been preferred challenging the aforesaid orders.
2. We have heard Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the respondent State of Gujarat at considerable length and have perused the record. We do not wish to consider in detail the various aspects of the merits of the case put forth on behalf of parties but bearing in mind the limited scope of the examination of the matter at the stage of grant or refusal of bail on the prima facie view, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case where the petitioner may be released on bail. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.