Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

High Court Of Delhi In "Rakesh Bisht vs Central Bureau Of on 5 February, 2011

              IN THE COURT OF MS. SANTOSH SNEHI MANN
                ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL)
                      TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

1.

SC No. : 75/2009;

        FIR No. : 166/2008
        PS     : Karol Bagh
        U/s    : 121/121-A/122/123/302/307/323/427/120-B IPC
                  3/4/5 Explosive Substances Act

16/18/20/23 Unlawful Activities (P) Act, 2004;66 I. T. Act

2. SC No. : 76/2009 FIR No. : 418/2008 PS : Connaught Place U/s : 121/121-A/122/123/302/307/323/427/120-B IPC 3/4/5 Explosive Substances Act 16/18/20/23 Unlawful Activities (P) Act, 2004;66 I. T. Act

3. SC No. : 78/2009 FIR No. : 419/2008 PS : Connaught Place U/s : 121/121-A/122/123/302/307/323/427/120-B IPC 3/4/5 Explosive Substances Act 16/18/20/23 Unlawful Activities (P) Act, 2004;66 I. T. Act 4. SC No. : 77/2009 FIR No. : 130/2008 PS : Greater Kailash U/s : 121/121-A/122/123/307/323/427/120-B IPC 3/4/5 Explosive Substances Act 16/18/20/23 Unlawful Activities (P) Act, 2004;66 I.T.Act 5. SC No. : 74/2009 FIR No. : 293/2008 PS : Tilak Marg U/s : 121/121-A/122/123/120-B IPC 3/4/5 Explosive Substances Act 16/18/20/23 Unlawful Activities (P) Act, 2004;66 I.T.Act FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 1 of 56 ORDER ON CHARGE :

Vide this common order, I shall decide the charges against the accused persons in all the five cases, mentioned above, as accused in all the five cases are same, material on which the prosecution is relying in these cases is same and all the five cases are allegedly the fall out of a common conspiracy.

2. As per the prosecution story revealed in the charge sheets, on 13.09.2008 between 05.55 pm to 06.30 pm capital city of the country witnessed serial bomb blasts at different places - one at Gaffar Market in Karol Bagh, one at Central Park in Connaught Place, one at Barakhamba Road in Connaught Place and two at M-Block Market in Greater Kailash, which left a panic trail in the city leaving behind 26 persons dead, 135 persons injured and vast destruction of property. Three Unexploded Improvised Explosive Devices (in short "IEDs") were also recovered - one from a dustbin near Regal Cinema in the Connaught Place, one from the dustbin in Central Park at Connaught Place and one from the dustbin in Children Park at India Gate. Consequently five FIRs were registered at different Police Stations - FIR No. 166/2008, U/s 121/121-A/122/123/302/307/323/ 427/120-B of IPC, U/s 3/4/5 of Explosive Substances Act, U/s 16/18/ 20/23 of Unlawful Activities (P) Act, 2004 at PS Karol Bagh, FIR No. 419/2008, U/s 121/121-A/ 122/123/302/307/323/427/120-B of IPC, U/s 3/4/5 of Explosive Substances Act, U/s 16/18/20/23 of FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 2 of 56 Unlawful Activities (P) Act, 2004 at PS Connaught Place, FIR No. 130/2008 U/s 121/121-A/122/123/307/323/427/120-B of IPC, U/s 3/4/5 of Explosive Substances Act, U/s 16/18/20/23 of Unlawful Activities (P) Act, 2004 at PS Greater Kailash-I, FIR No. 418/2008 U/s 121/121-A/122/123/302/307/323/427/120-B, U/s 3/4/5 of Explosive Substances Act, U/s 16/18/20/23 of Unlawful Activities (P) Act, 2004 at PS Connaught Place and FIR No. 293/2008 U/s 121/121-A/122/ 123/120-B of IPC, U/s 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act, U/s 16/18/20/23 of Unlawful Activities (P) Act, 2004 at PS Tilak Marg. On the same day i.e. 13.09.2008 at about 06.27 pm an e-mail was received by various Electronic and Print Media from ID [email protected] taking responsibility of these blasts on behalf of "Indian Mujahiddin". The genesis of this e-mail was traced to a connection of MTNL Mumbai in the name of M/s Kamran Power Control Private Limited.

3. Before the serial blasts in Delhi, similar serial blasts had occurred in various other cities. On 23.11.2007 serial blasts occurred at Lucknow, Varanasi and Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh and on the same day an e-mail from ID [email protected] was received by various Electronic and Print Media taking the responsibility of the blasts in U.P. with the subject "Mujahiddin Attack in many cities of U.P. after five min", which was generated and found to be sent from one "Rajdhani Cyber Cafe" of Delhi. On 13.05.2008 serial blasts FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 3 of 56 occurred in Jaipur and on 14.05.2008, an e-mail was received by Electronic and Print Media from "Indian Mujahiddin", taking responsibility of the blasts in Jaipur,which was sent from a Cyber Cafe at Ghaziabad. On 26.07.2008 serial blasts occurred at Ahmedabad and on the same day, a threatening e-mail from ID [email protected] was received by Electronic and Print Media from "Indian Mujahiddin". On 23.08.2008 another e-mail was received by Electronic and Print Media from E-Mail ID [email protected] from "Indian Mujahiddin" taking responsibility of the blasts with photographs of IEDs and cars used in planting the devices at Ahmedabad and Surat. Both these mails were sent from Mumbai through "Wi-Fi".

4. Since the e-mail dated 23.11.2007 about serial blasts in Uttar Pradeh was generated from Delhi, a case was registered in Delhi vide FIR No. 76/2007, under Section 121-A/120-B IPC read with Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act at PS Special Cell, Lodhi Colony. During investigation of this case, Special Cell of Delhi Police shared and exchanged information with other State Police and Central Intelligence Agencies and came to know that three mobile numbers - 9712398204, 9714552899 and 9724764196, all of Gujarat, were activated on 14.07.2008 and switched off on 26.07.2008, the date of serial blasts in Ahmedabad. These numbers were suspected to be used by the persons responsible for causing serial bomb blasts in Ahmedabad. One of these numbers, 9714552899 was found on FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 4 of 56 roaming in Delhi from 17 to 23 July, 2008 and its location was found in Jamia Nagar, Delhi. Out of the above three mobiles, Mobile No. 9712398204 was found in touch with one BSNL, UP East No. 9415835341, which was also touching a Delhi mobile No. 9811004309, a prepaid connection activated on 01.04.2007 in the name of one Mirza Shadab, resident of Jakir Nagar, Delhi which was subsequently changed to postpaid connection on 11.08.2008 in the name of one Mohd. Atif Amin, R/o L-18, Top Floor, Room No. 108, Batla House, Zakir Nagar, Delhi.

5. On 19.09.2008, on the basis of specific information, a team of Special Cell went to conduct raid at Flat No. 108 of L-18, Batla House, Delhi to trace and look out the user of mobile No. 9811004309. Inmates of this flat resisted the police raid and there was cross-firing between the occupants of this flat and the police team. Inspector Mool Chand Sharma and two inmates of the flat succumbed to the bullet injuries received in the incident. Two of the occupants of the flat managed to escape and one was arrested.

Person arrested from L-18, Batla House, Delhi was identified as Mohd. Saif S/o Saddab Ahmad (an accused and hereinafter referred as "A-2"), who disclosed the names of the two who had escaped as Ariz @ Junaith (wanted accused and hereafter referred as "W-1") and Shahzad @ Pappu (an accused and hereinafter referred as "A-13"). A-2 also revealed the names of two persons killed in the incident as Mohd. Atif Amin @ Bashir (hereinafter referred as "D-1") FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 5 of 56 and Mohd. Sazid @ Pankaj Sharma (hereinafter referred as "D-2"). Two 30 bore pistols were recovered from D-1 and D-2. Various articles and documents were recovered from the premises including one AK Series Rifle, 02 magazines containing 30 live cartridges each, various documents with fake identities, jehadi literature and around 01 Kg. steel balls.

6. As per the prosecution story, A-2 disclosed during investigation that he had been an active member of "SIMMI" and was now an active member of "Indian Mujahiddin", a terrorist organization of which D-1 was the head. He confessed his involvement in serial blasts in Delhi on 13.09.2008 and similar blasts in Ahmedabad, Jaipur and various cities in Uttar Pradesh. During interrogation it was revealed that A-2 alongwith one Khalid (wanted accused and hereinafter referred as "W-2") had planted two bombs in two dustbins at Regal Cinema in Connaught Place; his associate Mohd. Shakeel (an accused and hereinafter referred as "A-1") had planted a bag containing pressure cooker bomb in an auto rickshaw at Karol Bagh; D-2 alongwith Zeeshan Ahmed (an accused and hereinafter referred as "A-3") had planted one bomb in a dustbin at Barakhamba Road; Zia-Ur-Rehman (an accused and hereinafter referred as "A-4") alongwith one Mohd. Sazid @ Sazid Bada (wanted accused and hereinafter referred as "W-4") had planted two bombs in the dustbins at Central Park Connaught Place; Mirza Shaddab Baig @ Shaddab FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 6 of 56 Malik (wanted accused and hereinafter referred as "W-3") alongwith Shahzad Ahmad (an accused and hereinafter referred as "A-13") had planted one bomb at Children Park India Gate, New Delhi; and D-1 and W-1 had planted two bombs in the dustbin at M-Block Market, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. It was further revealed that A-2 alongwith Khalid (wanted accused and hereinafter referred as "W-2") had brought explosive substance from Udupi (Karnataka) for use in Delhi blasts from one Sharukh, a member of the terrorist group. A-2 disclosed that there is a "Media Group" of "Indian Mujahiddin" which sends e-mails before bomb blasts to warn the Indian Government. He further disclosed that members of "Indian Mujahiddin" are spread all over the country and disclosed names of the active members of this organization including names of accused Saquib Nisar (hereinafter referred as "A-5"), accused Mohd. Sadique @ Yamin (hereinafter referred as "A-6"), accused Kayamuddin Kapadia (hereinafter referred as "A-7") and accused Salman (hereinafter referred as "A-14"). Various articles and documents with fake names and identity belonging to D-1, D-2, W-1, W-3, W-4, A-2, A-3 and A-13 were also recovered from the premises.

7. On the basis of specific information on 19.09.2008 A-3 was arrested from Videocon Tower at Jhandewalan, Delhi at about 10.30 pm and a mobile phone make Sagem with Hutch Sim with No. 9811731423 besides other articles was recovered from him.

8. On 21.09.2008 on the basis of secret information A-1, A-4 and A-5 were arrested at about 4.30 am from near House No. F-68/1, Sign Bag Part-II, Jamia Nagar, Delhi.

9. Information about associates of A-2 and wanted accused of "Indian Mujahiddin" was shared by the investigating agency of these cases with Central Intelligence Agencies and other State Police. On this basis accused Mohd. Hakim (hereinafter referred as "A-8"), accused Shahzad Ahmad (hereinafter referred as "A-13") and accused Salman (hereinafter referred as "A-14") were arrested by Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS) UP, Lucknow on 02.01.2009, 01.02.2010 and 05.03.2010 respectively. During investigation it was revealed that A-8 had brought cycle ball bearings from Lucknow to Delhi on 07/08.09.2008, which were used in making IEDs for causing blasts in Delhi. He is also alleged to have deposited cash amounts in different accounts at Lucknow at the instance of D-1 subsequent to blasts in Delhi. Accused A-13 is alleged to have planted bomb at Children Park India Gate alongwith wanted accused W-3 and accused A-14 is alleged to have been involved in the serial blasts in other cities being a member of "Indian Mujahiddin" and close associate of D-1.

10. Accused Kayamuddin Kapadia (A-7) was arrested on 10.11.2008 at Ujjain (MP) in case FIR No. 699/2008, under Section 3/10/13 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 at PS Mahakal, Ujjain, MP by a team of STF and local police and FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 8 of 56 subsequently he was arrested in these cases. During investigation it was revealed that he came in contact with deceased accused Mohd. Atif Amin (D-1) through absconding wanted accused Riaz Batkal and assisted D-1 in carrying out serial blasts in Ahmedabad on 26.07.2008. He came to Delhi on 27.07.2008 and identified suitable targets alongwith D-1 for carrying blasts in Delhi and left Delhi on 04.08.2008. It was further revealed that on the direction of absconding accused Riaz Batkal he arranged explosive material for use in Delhi blasts, which he delivered to A-2 and W-2 at Udupi through one Sharukh.

11. Since e-mails about serial blasts in Gujarat and Delhi were sent from IP Addresses in Mumbai, they were taken under investigation in two separate cases registered vide CR No. 314/2008 under Section 295 (A)/505(2)/506(2) of IPC at police station Matunga on 24.08.2008 and vide CR No. 375/2008 under Section 295(A)/ 505(2)/506(2)/507 of IPC registered at police station Chambur on 17.09.2008. Subsequently, investigation of both these cases was transferred to CIU-(Operation), DCB, CID, Mumbai in CR No. 152/2008 under Section 295(A)/505(2)/507/506(II)/120-B/121/ 122/286 of the IPC, Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA), Section 6 & 9 (B) of Explosives Act, 1884 and Section 4 & 5 of Explosives Substance Act. During investigation of that case, one Afzal Mutalib Usmani was arrested on 23.09.2008, who disclosed that FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 9 of 56 cars used for planting bombs at Ahmedabad and Surat were stolen by him and his associates on the instructions of one Riaz Batkal (wanted accused), which were handed over to Fazal-E-Rehman at Surat and accused Rizwan @ Kayamuddin Kapadia (hereinafter referred as "A-7") at Ahmedabad. On the basis of leads provided by Afzal Mutalib Usmani, four persons were arrested by CID Mumbai on 24.09.2008 including accused Mohd. Sadique (A-6) and wanted accused Mohd. Arif Badruddin Sheikh (hereinafter referred as "W-6").

12. During investigation it was revealed that A-6 is a Pakistani Trained Militant and besides being a "SIMMI" member he is the founder member of "Indian Mujahiddin" and a close associate of Riaz Batkal (wanted accused and absconding) and Amir Raza (wanted accused based in Pakistan). He was involved in shootout at American Centre in the year 2002 and serial blasts in various States including Delhi. It was revealed that he recruited young people for militancy including Dr. Shahnawaz (wanted absconding accused) and sent them for militant training across borders. It was revealed that in the year 2003 he came in contact with deceased accused Mohd. Atif Amin (D-1), trained him in militant activities and introduced him to Amir Raza Khan (wanted accused). He is alleged to have conspired with D-1 and absconding accused Dr. Shahnawaj, Amir Raza Khan, Riaz Batkal and Iqbal Batkal to cause serial blasts in Delhi by the team of D-1 and also conspired with absconding accused Riaz Batkal, Iqbal Batkal and Amir Raza to sent terror e-mail about Delhi blasts FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 10 of 56 through "Media Cell" of "Indian Mujahiddin". He is alleged to have instructed W-6 to make 50 timers for detonating explosive devices, which were subsequently used in Ahmedabad and Delhi blasts. 02 revolvers, 01 carbine with 02 magazines and 38 live cartridges were recovered at his instance on 24.09.2008.

13. During investigation it was further revealed that W-6 was a "

SIMMI" member, trained in Pakistan and was skilled in making timer devices for detonating bombs, which he made and supplied to "Indian Mujahiddin" for use in detonating IEDs in various cities. He allegedly purchased clocks of brand "SAMAY-PRINCE" (Model No. 7017) from a shop in Mumbai and used them for making timer devices in a flat located in Ashoka Mews at Pune and handed over them to the wanted accused Riaz Batkal. 10 Kg. of Gelatin (AN), 15 detonators, 35 timers and 08 Kg. ball bearings were recovered at his instance.

14. It was revealed during investigation by A-6 & W-6 that a group of persons highly skilled in computers, operating from Pune, were members of "Media Cell Group", who are involved and responsible for sending the terror e-mails to Electronic and Print Media on behalf of "Indian Mujahiddin" , claiming responsibility of the blasts in various cities of India including serial blasts in Delhi. On the basis of specific leads provided by A-6 & W-6, in reference to the above, accused Mohd. Mansoor Ashgar Peerbhoy (hereinafter referred as "A-9"), accused Mubin Kadar Sheikh (hereinafter referred FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 11 of 56 as "A-10") and accused Asif Bashiruddin Sheikh (hereinafter referred as "A-11") were arrested on 28.09.2008 from Pune, Maharashtra. On 04.10.2008 A-11 escorted the Mumbai Police to Flat No. 302, H-Block, 3rd Floor, Ashoka Mews Building at Pune from where accused Mohd. Akbar Ismile Choudhary (an accused and hereinafter referred as "A-12" for reference) was arrested alongwith three others and various items were recovered from the premises including a trunk full of jehadi training material, 9.mm pistol and live cartridges etc.

15. During investigation, it was revealed that text of the e-mail dated 13.09.2008 was dictated by wanted accused Iqbal Batkal and Riaz Batkal to A-11 at Manglore, who handed over the draft of text in a pen drive to A-9 and A-10 at rented Flat No. 302, Ashoka Mews, Pune, where A-9 made grammatical corrections in the e-mail draft and thereafter A-10 and A-11 had put the graphics and signatures of wanted accused Iqbal Batkal and Riaz Batkal as Guru Alhindi and Alarbi in the e-mail. On 13.09.2008 A-9, A-10 and A-11 alongwith accused A-12 went to Mumbai in a Maruti Esteem Car driven by A-12 and at about 06.00 pm they found an unsecured "Wi-Fi" connection at Chembur, Mumbai. A-9 connected the wireless with Laptop and created the e-mail ID [email protected] attached the PDF file and slide file with initial and gave the subject - "Message of Death". At about 06.25 pm he hacked an unsecured "Wi-Fi"

connection of M/s Kamran Power Control Private Limited, Mumbai FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 12 of 56 and sent the mail to various Electronic & Print Media.

16. Recoveries made at the instance of A-9 include "Wi-Fi Hot Spot Finder", RF Signal Detector, Reliance Net Connector, a hard drive and a laptop. Recoveries at the instance of A-10 include 02 laptops and wireless broad band router.

17. The evidence and material against the accused persons about their role and involvement on record is as under :

i. Accused Mohd. Shakeel (A-1) is alleged to have conducted reccee alongwith D-1 and A-5 on 03.09.2008 at Gaffar Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi to identify the spot for planting IEDs. On 06.09.2008 he is alleged to have gone to Gaffar Market for selecting the place for parking the TSR and on 13.09.2008 he is alleged to have left a bag containing IEDs in a TSR in Gaffar Market at Karol Bagh, Delhi, which exploded and caused massive loss of human life and destruction of property. The material against him on record includes statement of Mool Chand, the TSR driver, who identified him from the photograph in a magazine and from CCTV footage of a Metro Station, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. There is material to indicate his presence in the area of Karol Bagh on the basis of his mobile No. 9811004309 (D-1) on 03.09.2008 and intercepted conversation dated 06.09.2008 between him and D-1.

ii. Accused Mohd. Saif (A-2) was arrested from L-18, Batla FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 13 of 56 House, New Delhi on 19.09.2008 after the encounter. He alongwith absconding accused Mohd. Khalid (W-2) is alleged to have placed IEDs in two dustbins near Regal Cinema, Connaught Place, New Delhi. He is also alleged to have brought the explosive substance from Udupi, Karnataka and cycle ball bearings for use in IEDs from Delhi. The evidence against him includes recovery of fake election card and driving license in the name of Rahul Sharma, fake driving license in the name of Sameer Khan, three mobile phones, one travelling bag in which the explosive substance was brought from Karnataka, identification by the staff of Hotel Broadway in Manipal, where he is alleged to have stayed during his visit to Udupi for bringing explosive material and identification by a shopkeeper in Delhi from where he is alleged to have purchased the cycle ball bearings for use in making IEDs.

iii. Accused Zeeshan Ahmed (A-3) is alleged to have planted IEDs in the dustbin near Bus Stop, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi opposite Gopal Dass Building alongwith deceased Mohd. Sazid @ Pankaj Sharma (D-2). The material against him includes statement of an eye witness, recovery of his documents with fake identity besides other articles from L-18, Batla House, Delhi and his connectivity with Mohd. Atif Amin (D-1) through his mobile No. 9811731423. iv. Accused Zia-Ur-Rehman (A-4) is alleged to have been FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 14 of 56 involved in assembling Ammonium Nitrate, cycle ball bearings and other articles to prepare IEDs in flat No. 108 of L-18, Batla House, Delhi alongwith other associates and D-1. He is also alleged to have planted the IEDs at Central Park, Connaught Place, New Delhi alongwith absconding accused Mohd. Sazid @ Sazid Bada (W-4). The material against him includes his connectivity through his mobile No. 9718542450 mobile with deceased Mohd. Atif Amin (D-1) and recovery of a plastic drum/tub with burnt clothes from L-18, Batla House, Delhi having traces of Ammonia Nitrate and also a rent agreement in the name of his father with respect to Flat No. 108 of L-18, Batla House, Delhi.

v. Accused Saquib Nisar (A-5) is alleged to have gone to Gaffar Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi alongwith A-1 and D-1 on 03.09.2008 for identifying the spot to plant IEDs and he allegedly stayed at L-18, Batla House, Delhi on 13.09.2008 with mobile phones of his associates, who had gone to plant IEDs at different places in Delhi, to mislead about their location at the time of blasts in order to avoid arrest. Material against him includes his location on specific dates and connectivity with D-1, A-1 and other associates through his mobile No. 9899040253.

vi. Accused Mohd. Sadique (A-6) is alleged to be one of the main conspirator alongwith deceased accused Mohd. Atif Amin FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 15 of 56 (D-1) and absconding & wanted accused Amir Raza and Batkal brothers for causing serial blasts in Delhi and for sending terror e-mail. He is alleged to have instructed wanted accused Mohd. Arif (W-6) on the demand of deceased Mohd. Atif Amin to prepare timers for detonating IEDs. The material on record against the accused Mohd. Sadique (A-6) is recovery of a mobile phone No. 9969506112 in his name, two revolvers, one carbine and two magazines with 38 live cartridges each. The Call Detail Record (in short "CDR") filed on record shows his connectivity with D-1 through his mobile. Leads provided by him led to arrest of Accused Mohd. Mansoor Ashgar Peerbhoy (A-9), Mubin Kadar Shaikh (A-10) and Asif Bashiruddin Shaikh (A-11), members of Media Cell of "Indian Mujahiddin", who are allegedly responsible for sending terror e-mail dated 13.09.2008 with respect to Delhi Serial Bomb Blasts. vii. Material against the accused Kayamuddin Kapadia (A-7) includes three consumer application forms in his handwriting on the basis of which three mobile connections vide No. 9712398204, 9714552899 and 9724764196, all of Gujarat, were taken on fake identity. One of these mobile phone No. 9714552899 was found on roaming in Delhi in the area of Jamia Nagar, Delhi from 17th to 23rd July, 2008 and other mobile No. 9712398204 was connected with one UP No. 9415835341, FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 16 of 56 which was in touch with D-1.

viii. Accused Mohd. Hakim (A-8) is alleged to have been part of the conspiracy who brought cycle ball bearings from Lucknow to Delhi for use in making the IEDs for causing serial blasts in Delhi. The evidence against him includes his intercepted conversation with D-1 in reference to delivery of some consignment and his location in Delhi from 8th to 11th September, 2008 on the basis of mobile telephone connection No. 9919124026 registered in his name.

ix. Accused Mohd. Mansoor Ashgar Peerbhoy (A-9), Mubin Kadar Shaikh (A-10) and Asif Bashiruddin Shaikh (A-11) are alleged to be the members of "Media Cell" which was responsible for preparing and sending the terror mail in the name of "Indian Mujahiddin" taking responsibility of serial blasts in Delhi on 13.09.2008 by hacking "Wi-Fi" connection. The evidence against the accused Mohd. Mansoor Ashgar Peerbhoy (A-9) includes recovery of "Wi-Fi Hot Spot Finder", one RF Signal Detector, one Reliance Net Connector, a spy finder, a hard disk make Seagate and a lap top of Accer Company. All these articles were sent for analysis to Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory at Mumbai and the result of analysis shows that the hard disk and laptop were mainly filled with Hex '00', which indicates the use of a secure file erasing or disk wiping software in them.

x. The material on record against accused Mubin Kadar Shaikh (A-10) includes besides other articles recovery of two HCL Laptops P.30 and B.30, wireless broadband router, two hard disks and one mobile etc. All these articles were also sent for analysis to Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory at Mumbai and the result of analysis shows that HCL Laptop P-30 contained three PDF documents with three separate titles (i) "THE RISE OF JIHAD, REVENGE OF GUJRAT. REALEASED BY INDIAN MUJAHIDDIN IN THE LAND OF HIND" (ii) "THE CARS THAT DEVASTED YOU THE TRUTH REAVEALED.

REALEASED BY INDIAN MUJAHIDDIN IN THE LAND OF HIND" and (iii) "EYE FOR AN EYE THE DUST WILL NEVER SETTLE DOWN. REALEASED BY INDIAN MUJAHIDDIN IN THE LAND OF HIND". This laptop was also found containing photographs of people killed in bomb blasts with sentences "Message of Death", "Your Destiny" and "Your Blood etc.". The other HCL Laptop B-30 shows presence of secure file erasing and disk wiping software and traces of secure erasing of files and disk wiping.

xi. The material against the accused Asif Bashiruddin Shaikh (A-11) includes recovery of a 9 mm pistol, 07 live cartridges and a trunk full of jehadi literature at his instance from Flat No. 302, Ashoka Mews at Pune.

xii. Accused Mohd. Akbar Ismile Choudhary (A-12) is alleged FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 18 of 56 to be a conspirator and was associated with the "Media Cell" of "Indian Mujahiddin" which was operating from Flat No. 302, Ashoka Mews, Pune. The material against him includes his arrest from Flat No. 302, Ashoka Mews at Pune from where incriminating material including a pistol, 07 live cartridges and truck load of jehadi material was recovered.

xiii. Accused Shahzad Ahmad (A-13) is alleged to have planted IEDs at Children Park India Gate, New Delhi on 13.09.2008 and was associated with deceased accused Mohd. Atif Amin (D-1) in the conspiracy. The material against him includes recovery of his documents and belongings from Flat No. 108 of L-18, Batla House, Delhi and statement of Inspector Rahul Kumar, a member of the raiding police party, who saw him firing at the police party from L-18, Batla House, Delhi during encounter on 19.09.2008 and escaping with wanted accused Arif @ Junaith (W-1). There are intercepted calls made by him to his family members from the mobile of D-1 before and after the serial blasts in Delhi.

xiv. Accused Salman (A-14) is alleged to be an active member of "Indian Mujahiddin", the group responsible for causing serial blasts in Delhi on 13.09.2008 and a close associate of deceased accused Mohd. Atif Amin and absconding & wanted accused Dr. Shahnawaj. Material against him includes recovery of copies of a Nepali Passport and a FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 19 of 56 health card with his photograph in fake names and intercepted calls showing his connectivity with D-1 through a mobile No. 9956044779.

18. I have heard Mr. Rajiv Mohan, Addl. PP for the State, Ms. Rebecca M. John, defence counsel for accused Mohd. Shakeel (A-1), Mr. K. Ansari, defence counsel for accused Mohd. Saif, Zeeshan Ahmed, Saquib Nisar, Mohd. Hakim, Shahzad and Salman , (A-2, A-3, A-5, A-8, A-13 and A-14) and Mr. M. S. Khan, defence counsel for the accused Zia-Ur-Rehman, Mohd. Sadique, Kayamuddin Kapadia, Mohd. Mansoor Ashgar Peerbhoy, Mubin Kadar Sheikh, Asif Bashiruddin Shaikh and Mohd. Akbar Ismail Choudhary (A-4, A-6, A-7, A-9, A-10, A-11 & A-12). I have carefully gone through the material on record.

19. It has been argued on behalf of the State that serial bomb blasts were planned and executed under a conspiracy to wage war against the country through terrorist acts by the members of an Organization "Indian Mujahiddin", who were otherwise known to be the members of banned organizations "Huji" and "SIMMI" and further that serial blasts were carried out by "Indian Mujahiddin" in Delhi and other cities for unlawful purpose through terrorist acts with direct and active role of all the accused before this Court in the five cases. It has been further argued that accused Mohd. Saif (A-2) was arrested after an encounter from Flat No. 108 of L-18, Batla House, Delhi, where police had raided on specific information about presence of Mohd. Atif Amin @ Bashir (D-1) on the basis of location of his mobile No. 9811004309, FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 20 of 56 which was already under surveillance and interception by the police. While D-1 and one of his associates Mohd. Sajid (D-2) died in the encounter, two of his associates namely Shahzad and Ariz @ Junaith escaped. It has been further argued that interrogation of A-2 revealed the names of persons involved in causing serial blasts in Delhi. It has been further argued that while A-3 was arrested in Delhi on the basis of specific information on the intervening night of 19/20.09.2008, A-1, A-4 and A-5 were arrested on 21.09.2008 from Jamia Nagar, Delhi on the basis of specific information about their presence and A-8, A-13 and A-14 were arrested by ATS UP on the basis of information given to all State Police by the Commissioner of Delhi Police about wanted accused. It is submitted that simultaneously in the investigation carried out by CID, Mumbai in case FIR No. 152/2008 with respect to e-mail sent to Electronic and Print Media about Delhi Serial Bomb Blast, accused Sadique (A-6) and wanted accused Mohd. Arif Badruddin Sheikh (W-6), were arrested from Mumbai, who gave leads and inputs on the basis of which A-9, A-10, A-11 and A-12 were arrested, who had sent the terror e-mail on 13.09.2008. It has been argued that arrest of the accused persons on the basis of specific leads provided by them about involvement of their associates show that they were closely connected with each other and executed their nefarious design under the conspiracy to achieve ulterior purpose. It was argued that besides recovery of incriminating material from the FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 21 of 56 individual accused, there is scientific evidence on record in the form of call detail records, intercepted voice record, opinion of handwriting of accused persons and voluminous electronic evidence to show their involvement. It is thus argued that all the accused be charged for waging war against the country through serial bomb blasts in Delhi and for causing death of 26 persons, injury to 135 persons and destruction of property under The Indian Penal Code, besides various offences under The Explosive Substances Act, The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and The Information Technology Act.

20. It was argued on behalf of accused Mohd. Shakeel (A-1) that besides his name appearing in the disclosure statement of co-accused Mohd. Saif (A-2), none of the articles recovered at his instance is incriminating as they are routine household articles. It was argued that the proposed recorded conversation between D-1 and A-1 through mobiles No. 9811004309 and No. 9989284784 respectively cannot be used against A-1 as the mobile phone No. 9989284784 was not registered in the name of A-1 and there was no evidence about ownership till the charge sheet was filed. It was argued that during arguments when this fact was pointed out in the Court, the police in a very clandestine manner recoded statement of one Junaid Alam Khan on 20.09.2010 to the effect that the said mobile phone was given by him to A-1 and placed it on record as a part of the supplementary charge-sheet filed on 20.10.2010. It was further argued that as per the specific guidelines laid down by Hon'ble FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 22 of 56 High Court of Delhi in "Rakesh Bisht V/s Central Bureau of Investigation, 2007(1) JCC 482" voice sample can be taken only during trial with permission of the Court and therefore, the voice sample taken by the investigating agency during investigation cannot be used against the accused. It was argued that there is no voice identification to establish that one of the persons in intercepted conversation was A-1 since the mobile No. 9989284784 is not registered in the name of A-1. It was argued that the alleged recorded conversation between A-1 and D-1 does not indicate that it was about bombing the capital and that no such meaning can be given to the conversation, which is not apparent. It was argued that despite the fact that A-1 was arrested on 21.09.2008, he was identified by a witness on 21.10.2008 i.e. one month after his arrest, in an unusual procedure for TIP, where the witness identified the accused on the basis of his photograph in a magazine and CCTV video footage, the picture quality of which is not recognizable. It was argued that prosecution has nowhere explained as to what prevented it to hold TIP of the accused through the established procedure and further that identification of A-1 by one Barber after six months of the incident again on the basis of footage from CCTV is unreliable. It was further argued that as per the prosecution case, two persons i.e. Mohd. Said (A-2) and Mohd. Khalid (wanted accused W-2) travelled in a train from Delhi to Udupi, Karnataka under assumed names and the reservation forms were allegedly filled by A-1. It was argued that even FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 23 of 56 if the reservation forms were found filled in the handwriting of A-1, it cannot connect him for causing blasts in Delhi. It was argued that as per the settled legal position publishing photo of an accused before TIP would not lead to discovery of a new fact in TIP and a recorded conversation is only corroborative in nature, therefore, there is nothing substantial on record to connect A-1 with his alleged role in the incident.

21. It has been argued by defence counsel for accused Zia-Ur- Rehman (A-4) that only evidence against him is recovery of a tub and burnt clothes at his instance from L-18, Batla House, Delhi on 23.09.2008, which had traces of Ammonium Nitrate. It was argued that on 19.09.2008 two parallel investigations were going on at L-18, Batla House, Delhi, one with respect to serial bomb blasts in Delhi on 13.09.2008 and the other with respect to encounter at L-18, Batla House, Delhi on 19.09.2008, wherein a senior police officer and two alleged terrorists were killed. It is submitted that after the shooting incident at Batla House many expert teams visited the spot to collect the evidence and it was very unlikely that they would miss a huge article like tub and burnt clothes during inspection so as to leave them to be recovered later on at the instance of A-4 on 23.09.2008.

22. It has been argued on behalf of the accused Saquib Nisar (A-5) that the only material on record against him is the pointing out memo of the place of incident, which was already a known fact. His alleged presence with the D-1 and A-2 on 03.09.2008 for doing FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 24 of 56 reccee in the area of Karol Bagh is not supported by any evidence. It was argued that intercepted call transcript between D-1 and A-2 on 06.09.2008 nowhere indicates that A-5 was in the picture and just because A-5 did not receive any call on a particular date cannot be considered as incriminating, which inference might be drawn in a situation when call is not attended.

23. On behalf of the accused Mohd. Sadique (A-6), it was argued that the only incriminating against him qua Delhi Serial Blasts is his connectivity through mobile No. 9969506112 with deceased accused Atif Amin at his mobile No. 9811004309, which was transferred in the name of deceased on 11.08.2008, shown as resident of L-18, Batla House, Delhi. It was argued that as per the rent agreement with respect to L-18, Batla House, Delhi in the name of father of A-4, this premises was taken on rent on 15.08.2008 and, therefore, D-1 could not be resident of this premises on 11.08.2008 i.e. prior to the date of rent agreement.

24. It has been argued on behalf of the accused Kayamuddin Kapadia (A-7) that only evidence against him is that he arranged three phones at Ahmedabad including No. 9724764196, which was allegedly used by him. It was argued that none of the mobile phones have been recovered and there is no material to connect him with the alleged incriminating telephone numbers.

25. It was argued on behalf of accused Mohd. Hakim (A-8) that nothing incriminating has been recovered from his possession. It was FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 25 of 56 argued that as per the prosecution story, he purchased the cycle ball bearings in bulk from Lucknow, but no attempt has been made by the prosecution to locate the said shop in Lucknow despite disclosure of A-8 that he could point out the shop. It was argued that the alleged call transcript between A-8 and D-1 does not reveal as what was being brought by A-8 to Delhi and there is no other evidence to indicate what was brought. It was argued that presence of A-8 in Delhi or in the area of Batla House cannot become an offence until and unless there is an overt act. With respect to transcript dated 11.09.2008 between A-8 and D-1, it was argued that the text of the transcript has been chosen and picked. Therefore, the same cannot be used against the accused.

26. With respect to accused Mohd. Mansoor Ashgar Peerbhoy (A-9), it was argued that as per the prosecution case, he was arrested by Mumbai Police on 28.09.2008 on the basis of disclosure of co-accused Mohd. Sadique (A-6). It has been argued that arrest of A-6 by Mumbai Police on 24.09.2008 was widely covered in the media headlines and in such circumstances it is very improbable and unbelievable that a person would keep the incriminating material with him especially by a person like A-9, who is a highly qualified computer professional. It was further argued that alleged recovery of laptop from A-9 was made on 30.09.2008 i.e. further after two days of his arrest, which raises suspicion and further that otherwise also no FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 26 of 56 incriminating material has been recovered from the laptop, allegedly recovered from his possession and at his instance. It has been argued that A-9 is a computer professional who did Hacking Course to improve his expertise and doing such a Course is not illegal. It has been further argued that the pointing out of the alleged shop by A-9 from where the laptop was purchased is of no consequence because it was already identified by other accused persons. It has been argued that identification of A-9 and A-10 by the shop owner is highly improbable because as per the prosecution story the laptop containing the incriminating evidence was purchased on 04.07.2008 and the accused were identified by the shop owner on 09.03.2009 i.e. after about 08 months. It was further argued that as per the prosecution case, A-9 is alleged to have hacked one unsecured "Wi- Fi" connection from M/s Kamran Power Control Private Limited in Mumbai, whereas there is no evidence in this regard.

27. With respect to accused Mubin Kadar Sheikh (A-10), it was argued that as per the prosecution story two laptops have been recovered from his possession on 30.09.2008 and as per FSL Result with respect to one laptop (Ex. 1), three PDF files containing text of threatening e-mail, allegedly sent by "Indian Mujahiddin" at the time of serial bomb blasts in various cities including Delhi were found. It was argued that PDF files of the said incriminating material are shown to be created on 15.09.2008 i.e. after the date of the incident and, therefore, cannot be connected with the allegations that it was used FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 27 of 56 and sent at the time of Delhi Serial Bomb Blasts on 13.09.2008. It was further argued that as per FSL Result the laptop (Ex. 2) was also found containing some PDF files, but they cannot be connected with this case as date of creation and last access to those files are not connected with the date and time of the alleged e-mail dated 13.09.2008.

28. It was argued on behalf of accused Asif Bashiruddin Shaikh (A-11) that nothing incriminating has been recovered from his possession and there is no material on record to show that he travelled from Pune to Mumbai and hacked a "Wi-Fi" connection. It was argued that his pointing out certain places during investigation did not lead to discovery of a new fact.

29. It was argued by the defence counsel for accused Mohd. Akbar Ismile Choudhary (A-12) that as per the prosecution story, he arranged the car and drove it to Mumbai from Pune alongwith A-9, A-10 and A-11, from where an unsecured "Wi-Fi" was hacked through which e-mail dated 13.09.2008 was sent to media. It was argued submitted that neither the car has been recovered till date, which was allegedly driven by A-12 nor any laptop or other electronic device has been recovered from his possession so as to connect him with the terror mail. It was argued that only material against him is the disclosure statement of co-accused and his own confession, which are not admissible in evidence.

30. It was argued on behalf of the accused Shahzad Ahmad FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 28 of 56 (A-13) that nothing incriminating has been recovered from his possession. It was argued by Ld. Defence counsel that as per the prosecution story, he was seen by Inspector Rahul Kumar while firing and escaping from L-18, Batla House, Delhi during encounter on 19.09.2008. It was argued that in an encounter like situation it is not probable for the persons involved in cross-firing to see the person, who has escaped from other side. It was argued that otherwise also presence of A-13 at Batla House, Delhi on 19.09.2008 will not make him an accused in causing serial blasts in Delhi on 13.09.2008, as there is no evidence against him in this regard. It was further argued that conversation by A-13 to his family members from the mobile of deceased Mohd. Atif Amin @ Bashir (D-1) is not incriminating in any way.

31. It was argued on behalf of the accused Salman (A-14) that nothing incriminating has been recovered from his possession at the time of his arrest by ATS UP. It was argued that a document was planted later on by the Delhi Police by pasting his photo. In this context it was pointed out that the memo prepared by ATS UP at the time of arrest of A-14 does not include the health card with his photo in the list of recovered documents, which suddenly gets introduced as an additional document in the memo prepared by the Delhi Police and it is nowhere explained in the charge sheet as to from where this document came in their possession. It was further argued that while some of the documents show age of A-14 as 19 years, others show FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 29 of 56 his age as 20 years, which shows desperation of the police to implicate the accused. It was argued that the only material against the accused on record is his acquaintance and conversation with D-1, which cannot be taken as offence as they both belong to the same place and the text of intercepted conversation does not reveal any incriminating fact. It was further argued that no specific role or participation of A-14 has been alleged by the prosecution in the serial blasts in Delhi and therefore, in the absence of any alleged act or alleged omission on the part of A-14, he cannot be made a party to the conspiracy. (Reference has been made to Apex Court's decision in AIR 2005 SC 3820 and JT 1999 (4) SC 106).

32. In order to appreciate the rival contentions on framing charges, it is necessary to go through the principles laid down by the Apex Court for considering framing of charge against the accused and scope of enquiry for this purpose.

33. In "State of Bihar V/s Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39" it was held by the Apex Court that at the stage of framing of charge it is not obligatory for the the judge to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. At that stage, the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion, at the initial stage of framing of charge, is sufficient to frame the charge and in that event it is not open to say that there is FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 30 of 56 no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In "State of Delhi V/s Gyan Devi & Others, (2000) 8 SCC 239" it was reiterated by the Supreme Court that at the stage of framing of charge the Trial Court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the Court to consider sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons.

34. In "Soma Chakravarty V/s State through CBI, AIR 2007 SC 2149" it was held that at the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. In "Onkar Nath Mishra & Others V/s State (NCT of Delhi) & Another (2008) 2 SCC 561" it was held that at the stage of framing of charge, what needs to be considered is whether there is ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out.

35. Arguments in defence of accused Mohd. Shakeel (A-1) are three-fold - his identification by the TSR Driver on the basis of his photograph in the magazine and CCTV footage is not as per the established procedure for holding TIP of a suspected accused; secondly, the phone No. 9899284784 through which he was allegedly in communication with deceased accused Mohd. Atif Amin is not registered in his name; and lastly that the voice sample of the accused has been taken in violation of the guidelines and thus cannot FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 31 of 56 be used against him.

36. As per the material on record, accused A-1 has been identified by the TSR Driver in which the IED was allegedly planted by him. Whether the accused could or could not have been identified by the said TSR Driver on the basis of CCTV footage after a month and whether identification of accused on the basis of his photograph in the magazine is proper or not is matter of appreciation of evidence, which is not the scope of enquiry at this stage. Moreover, possibility or probability of identification of the accused by the witnesses cannot be considered at this stage. For the purpose of framing charge, identification of the accused by the eye witness whether on the basis of his photograph in the magazine or through CCTV footage create a strong suspicion about involvement of the accused in the incident.

37. It is true that there was no material on record about the ownership of mobile No. 9899284784 at the time of filing of the charge sheet. By way of supplementary charge sheet filed during the course of arguments, prosecution has placed on record statement of one Zunaid Alam Khan in whose name the above mobile connection is registered, stating that he gave this mobile number to accused Mohd. Shakeel (A-1). During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the fact of ownership was already under investigation when the charge sheet was filed and as soon as the material was collected by the investigating agency, it was placed on record. Section 173(8) of Cr. P. C. provides that nothing FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 32 of 56 precludes the investigating agency from placing on record any material which is obtained on further investigation, even after filing of the charge sheet. The material so placed on record even after filing of the charge sheet, becomes part of the charge sheet and adds to the material for consideration by the Court while considering framing of charge against the accused. The defence argument that witness Zunaid Alam Khan has been introduced only to fill the lacuna cannot be gone into at this stage because that would amount to going into the merits and credibility of the material, which is beyond the scope of enquiry at this stage.

38. The last contention of the defence counsel is that since voice sample of accused Mohd. Shakeel was taken in violation of the guidelines given by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rakesh Bisht's case (Supra), the same cannot be considered as incriminating against him. It is the settled legal position that call records and intercepted telephonic conversation on cellular phones are reliable and admissible in evidence. (Reference to "State of NCT of Delhi V/s Navjot Sandhu, AIR 2005 SC 3820"). Ld. Defence counsel has not challenged the admissibility of the recorded conversation, but the manner in which voice sample of A-1 was taken during investigation.

39. I have carefully gone through the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Rakesh Bisht's case (supra). In that case accused had challenged the order of the Trial Court whereby direction was given to the accused to give voice sample on the application of the FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 33 of 56 State. It was in those circumstances that Hon'ble High Court held that the Trial Court can pass order directing the accused to give voice sample only during trial when proceedings are before it and not during the pendency of investigation. The situation and circumstances of the present case are entirely different as not only that the voice sample of accused A-1 has already been taken during investigation, there is already an expert opinion on record identifying the questioned voice in the conversation with the voice sample of accused Mohd. Shakeel (A-1). And, it has been held by the Apex Court in Navjot Sandhu's case (supra) that any illegality or irregularity will not affect the admissibility of intercepted telephonic conversation. Further, in "R. M Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra, 1973(1) SCC 471" the Apex Court held that even if the evidence is illegally obtained it is admissible.

40. Therefore, in view of the above referred legal position and also in view of the fact that stage and circumstances of this case are different from the circumstances and situation before High Court of Delhi in Rakesh Bisht's case (supra), the expert opinion about voice sample of A-1 to connect him with intercepted conversation with deceased Mohd. Atif Amin on mobile phone is admissible against him.

41. It was also argued by the defence counsel that the text of intercepted conversation is not incriminating at all. I am not convinced with this argument because the text conversation is required to be FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 34 of 56 looked in the context it has been referred to in the charge sheet. The intercepted conversation between A-1 and D-1 on 06.09.2008 do indicate that it was in the context of which A-1 is alleged to have gone to Karol Bagh area on 06.09.2008 i.e to select the place for parking the TSR after planting IEDs. Besides the above material, location of his mobile phone was found to be in the area of Karol Bagh on 03.09.2008 alongwith location of mobile phones of D-1 and A-5, where they are had allegedly gone to do reccee of the area. Thus the material on record prima facie shows active role & involvement of A-1 in planning and execution of serial blasts in Delhi.

42. No specific arguments have been addressed on behalf of accused Mohd. Saif (A-2) and accused Zeeshan Ahmad (A-3). Nevertheless it is necessary to go through the material on record to see whether there is material on record against them to frame charge. Accused A-2 was arrested from Flat No. 108 of L-18, Batla House, Delhi on 19.09.2008 by the police after an encounter when the inmates of this flat including, A-2, resisted the police party, which had gone to raid flat in search of deceased accused Mohd. Atif Amin (D-1) on the basis of location of his mobile No. 9811004309 which was under surveillance of police. It was only during interrogation of A-2 after his arrest that identity of offenders of serial blasts in Delhi surfaced. In the said encounter D-1 was killed and huge incriminating material was recovered from the premises. A-2 is alleged to have FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 35 of 56 planted the IEDs alongwith the absconding accused Mohd. Khalid (W-2) in dustbins near Regal Cinema at Connaught Place, New Delhi. He is also alleged to have brought the explosive substance from Udupi, Karnataka and purchased cycle ball bearings for use in making IEDs. Though there is no direct evidence about his planting the IEDs, but there is sufficient material on record to strongly indicate his involvement in bringing material for use in making IEDs. Documents were recovered from L-18, Batla House, Delhi with his photograph in the fake name Rahul Sharma. Entry in the register of Hotel Broadway at Manipal tallied with his handwriting where he is alleged to have stayed while bringing the explosive substance. A bag was recovered at his instance from Flat No. 108 at L-18, Batla House, Delhi which he revealed to have used for carrying the explosive substance. The bag was sent for forensic analysis and the report shows presence of Ammonium Nitrate (an explosive substance) traces in the said bag. There is statement of one shopkeeper from whom A-2 is alleged to have purchased cycle ball bearings in bulk prior to serial bomb blasts in Delhi. In addition to the above material, his presence at Flat No. 108 at L-18, Batla House, Delhi alongwith the deceased D-1 and his connectivity with him through his mobile No. 9718664537 prima-facie shows his active role in the incident as a close associate of deceased accused D-1.

43. With respect to involvement of accused Zeeshan Ahmad (A-3) there is an eye witness account that A-2 planted IEDs in the FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 36 of 56 dustbin near Bus Stop at Barakhamba Road, opposite Gopal Dass Building, New Delhi. Call detail records of his mobile phone No. 9811731423 shows his connectivity with D-1, A-1 and A-5 besides others. His documents and belongings were recovered from Flat No. 108 at L-18, Batla House, Delhi, which shows he was one of the occupants of this premises alongwith D-1, which was used by them for assembling, planning and making preparation for executing serial blasts in Delhi.

44. Accused Zir-Ur-Rehman (A-4) was arrested on 21.09.2008 alongwith A-1 and A-5 on the basis of specific information after their names were revealed by A-2 in his disclosure statement. As per the material on record, a plastic tub with burnt clothes was recovered from Flat No. 108 at L-18, Batla House, Delhi, which according to him was used in assembling the IEDs, which were used for causing serial blasts in Delhi. The FSL Result about this tub shows presence of Ammonium Nitrate traces, an explosive substance used in the IEDs which caused serial blasts in Delhi. The main argument in defence of accused A-4 is that recovery of this tub and burnt clothes on 23.09.2008 is improbable because many expert teams must have visited the premises after the encounter on 19.09.2008. As already discussed in the preceding paragraphs, while considering the material for framing charges against the accused persons, the probative value of evidence and credibility of the witnesses cannot be gone into. Whether this plastic tub and burnt clothes with Ammonium Nitrate FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 37 of 56 traces could have been recovered on 19.09.2008 or could not have been recovered on 23.09.2008 is a subject matter of trial and beyond the scope of enquiry at this stage.

45. Besides arrest of A-4 alongwith A-1 and A-5 and recovery of a plastic tub and burnt clothes with traces of Ammonium Nitrate, his mobile No. 9718542450 shows his connectivity with deceased accused D-1 on his mobile No. 9811004309. All the above material create a strong suspicion about role and involvement of accused A-4 in the incident alongwith others.

46. The main argument in defence of the accused Saquib Nisar (A-5) has been that there is no evidence to show that he went to conduct reccee in the area of Karol Bagh alongwith A-1 and D-1 on 03.09.2008 and that his presence at Flat No. 108 of L-18, Batla House, Delhi on 13.09.2008 cannot be incriminating. As per the material on record, mobile No. 9899040253 registered in the name of A-5, was recovered from his possession and location of this number was found to be in Karol Bagh on 03.09.2008 alongwith mobile phones of A-1 and D-1. Since this particular mobile number is registered in the name of A-1, location of this mobile number would relate to presence of A-5 at that particular place. Therefore, his presence alongwith A-1 and D-1 (on the basis of location of their mobile phones) in the area of Karol Bagh indicates his association and movement with them and creates a strong suspicion that his FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 38 of 56 association and movement in context of the allegation against him. Similarly, presence of A-5 at Flat No. 108 of L-18, Batla House, Delhi around the time of serial blasts in Delhi on 13.09.2008, if looked as an isolated single incident, may not be of any consequence but when it is seen in the circumstances that location of the mobile phones of his associates, who were out of the premises to plant IEDs at various locations, was at one place alongwith the mobile phone of accused A-5, it strongly indicates his association with D-1 and other accused and a strategy to mislead about movement and location of his associates. CDR shows connectivity of A-5 with D-1, A-1 and A-3 through phone and his arrest alongwith A-1 and A-4 strongly indicate about his purposive association with them and involvement in the incident.

47. Argument in defence of A-6 is that his connectivity with D-1 through mobile is not probable because the rent agreement of premises No. L-18, Batla House, Delhi in the name of father of A-4 is dated 15.08.2008, whereas the mobile phone No. 9811004309 was transferred in the name of D-1 shown as resident of this address on 11.08.2008. In my opinion, this argument is too hypothetical and vague. Whether D-1 could have given the address of L-18, Batla House, Delhi on 11.08.2008 or not is not a subject matter for consideration in the present enquiry. There is sufficient material on record to show that mobile No. 9811004309 was registered in the name of Mohd. Atif Amin (D-1), who as per the material on record was FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 39 of 56 one of the master planners of serial blasts in Delhi. CDR shows connectivity between A-1 and D-1 on mobile before the date of incident. Further, on the basis of leads provided by A-6, identity of members of Media Cell of "Indian Mujahiddin" was revealed and they were arrested, who were allegedly responsible for sending the terror e-mail to various Electronic and Print Media on 13.09.2008 the date of serial bomb blasts in Delhi. Moreover, profile of A-6 itself is a strong indication of his probable involvement in the incident. He is facing trial for American Centre shoot-out incident in Calcutta, where there is an eye witness account against him. Recovery from him includes 02 revolvers, 01 carbine and 02 magazines with 38 live cartridges each, which on the face of it is an incriminating material. The above material is sufficient to prima-facie show role and involvement of A-6 as a conspirator with D-1 for causing bomb blasts in Delhi.

48. The main argument in defence of Kayamuddin Kapadia (A-7) is that there is no incriminating recovery from him and none of the three mobile phones allegedly used by him has been recovered. In order to appreciate the contention of Ld. Defence counsel for A-7, it is necessary to recollect that before the serial blasts in Delhi, similar blasts were reported in various other cities. An e-mail regarding serial blasts in UP was found to be generated from Delhi on 23.11.2007 and in that context a case was registered vide FIR No. 76/2007 at PS Special Cell. Information was exchanged by Delhi Police with other State Police and three mobile Nos. 9712398204, 9714552899 and FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 40 of 56 9724764196 (all activated in Gujarat) were put under surveillance, which were found to be activated on 14.07.2008 and switched off on 26.07.2008, the date of serial blasts in Ahmedabad. During surveillance on these numbers, mobile No. 9811004309 registered in the name of deceased accused D-1 was found in connectivity and thus the premises at L-18, Batla House, Delhi was raided by the police on 19.09.2008 in search of user of this mobile no. It is a matter of record that till 19.09.2008 police had no clue about the persons involved in serial blasts in Delhi. It is true that none of the above three Gujarat mobile numbers have been recovered but the material on record shows that consumer application forms for the above three connections were filled by A-7 with fake identities and his sample handwriting has tallied with the handwriting on the application forms. Further, one of the mobile phone No. 9714552899 was found roaming in Delhi from 17-23 July, 2008 and its location was found in Jamia Nagar, Delhi. The above material strongly connect A-7 with the three Gujarat Numbers. The short duration for which these three numbers remained in operation and location of one of the numbers in Delhi in the area of Jamia Nagar, Delhi which is the area of L-18, Batla House, Delhi, create strong suspicion about profile of A-7, his activities and purposive association with D-1 in planning and assistance in the serial blasts in Delhi.

49. The arguments in defence of accused Mohd. Hakim (A-8) is that nothing incriminating has been recovered from him and the text FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 41 of 56 of his intercepted conversation with D-1 has been picked and selected. The material on record shows that A-8 was in conversation with D-1 on his mobile No. 9811004309 through mobile No. 9919124026 prior to serial bomb blasts in Delhi. Since mobile phone of D-1 was already under surveillance by the police, his conversation with A-8 was intercepted and recorded. Mobile phone No. 9919124026, though has not been recovered, but the same has been found registered in the name of A-8, which has not been disputed. Sample voice of A-8 has tallied with the intercepted conversation of the person with D-1. The text of conversation does indicate that something was brought by A-8 from Lucknow to Delhi for delivery to D-1. Location of his mobile shows his presence in Delhi between 8th to 11th of September, 2008 and also around the area of L-18, Batla House, Delhi, which was under occupation of D-1 and his other associates. Keeping in view the scope of enquiry at the stage of framing charges, the material on record create a strong suspicion against A-8 about his involvement in the incident as an associate of D-1 in making preparation for executing serial bomb blasts in Delhi.

50. The single argument in defence of Mohd. Mansoor Ashgar Peerbhoy (A-9) has been that nothing incriminating has been recovered from his laptop and identification by the shopkeeper after months of purchase of laptop is improbable and further that there is no material on record to show that "Wi-Fi" connection of M/s Kamran FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 42 of 56 Power Control Limited was hacked by him. It is not disputed that A-9 is a highly qualified computer professional and also a qualified hacker. Recovery from him includes a laptop make Accer, a Wi-Fi Spot Finder, RF Signal Detector, one hard disk and a Reliance Net Connector. There is nothing unusual about the profile of A-9 and the recovery from him if they are seen independently and in isolation of other circumstances. But what is unusual is that FSL Result shows that hard disk and the laptop were found filled with Hex "00" which is an indicator of usage of secure file erasing or disk wiping software in them. The expert report further mentions that secure file/data erasing is a method of software-based overwriting that completely destroys all electronic data residing on a hard drive or other digital media. As per report, permanent data erasing goes beyond basic file deletion commands.

51. So while nothing incriminating material as such has been recovered from the laptop of A-9. But the data from the laptop & hard disk has been found completely erased permanently, which is unusual and creates suspicion. Permanent erasing of data creates a strong suspicion about what could have been the nature of data which has been erased by A-9 permanently to check detection. In the given circumstances where A-9 has been arrested on the basis of leads provided by A-6 and wanted accused W-6, his qualification as a computer expert & qualified hacker, permanent deletion of data from his laptop and hard disk through disk wiping software, strongly create FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 43 of 56 suspicion about his role and involvement in creating and sending terror e-mail dated 13.09.2008. Besides the above circumstantial material, there is a witness about the fact that A-9 alongwith co-accused A-10 purchased the laptop and a laptop recovered at the instance of A-10 has been found containing the text of terror e-mail dated 13.09.2008. As already discussed in the preceding paragraphs probability and possibility of such identification by the witness after couple of months, cannot be gone into at this stage.

52. With respect to accused Mubin Kadar Sheikh (A-10) the material on record includes recovery of 02 HCL Laptops-Model P.30 and B.30. As per the FSL Result laptop P.30 was found containing three PDF documents including terror e-mail dated 13.09.2008 besides photographs of people killed in the bomb blasts. The HCL Laptop B.30 showed presence of secure file erasing and disk wiping software and traces of secure erasing of 3 PDF files and disk wiping on 13.09.2008. Though Ld. Defence counsel argued that as per FSL result the incriminating e-mail was found written in the laptop on 15.09.2008 i.e after the date of incident, but this argument is contrary to the FSL result about data of laptop P-30 according to which the date and time of last written PDF file - 3 pdf, which is the terror mail dated 13.09.2008, is 1.28.32 AM on 13.09.2008, which was received by various Electronic & Print Media by e-mail at 06.27 pm on 13.09.2008. In view of the FSL Result about date of and time creation of this file in the laptop of A-10, there is no merit in the argument of FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 44 of 56 defence counsel because the material on record prima facie shows that the terror e-mail dated 13.09.2008 was created on the intervening night of 12-13/08.2009 on the HCL laptop P-30 recovered from the possession of A-10 and this strongly indicates his involvement in creating and sending the terror e-mail in association with A-9 and others.

53. Arguments with respect to accused Asif Badruddin Shaikh (A-11) and accused Mohd. Akbar Ismail Choudhary (A-12) has been that there is no incriminating recovery from them. As per the prosecution case they were associated with A-9 and A-10 as 'Media Cell' of 'Indian Mujahiddin' which was responsible for sending terror e-mail on 13.09.2008. Sufficient material has come on record as discussed above, about role and involvement of A-9 and A-10 in creating the text of terror e-mail and for sending it to media by hacking the Wi-Fi connection of M/s Kamran Power Control Private Ltd. A-11 was arrested simultaneously with A-9 and A-10 on the basis of leads provided by A-6 and W-6. As per the material on record, Mumbai Police was led to Flat No. 302, Ashoka Mews, Pune by A-11 from where lots of incriminating material was recovered including jehadi material, one 9 mm pistol and 07 live cartridges. A-12 was arrested from the said premises from where above recovery was made. This shows purposive association of A-11 and A-12 inter-se as well as with A-9 and A-10 for the activities for which the premises at FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 45 of 56 Ashoka Mews, was used.

54. The main argument in defence of the accused Shahzad Ahmad (A-13) has been that nothing incriminating hs been recovered from him and his identification by Inspector Rahul Kumar, a member of police raiding party is improbable. As already discussed, identity of accused by an eye witness is admissible in evidence and probability of a witness to be able to see an escaping person from the place of incident is a matter of trial. Besides the statement of Inspector Rahul Kumar, documents and belongings of A-13 were recovered from Flat No. 108 of L-18 Batla House, Delhi which shows he was an occupant of that flat alongwith D-1 and others. Moreover, intercepted transcription of calls made from mobile phone of D-1 shows that mobile phone of D-1 was used by A-13 to speak to his family members. Therefore, the material on record raises strong suspicion about his involvement in the serial blasts in Delhi as a close associate of D-1 and other accused.

55. It was argued on behalf of accused Salman (A-14) that no specific role has been assigned to him either in the conspiracy or in actual execution of the plan to cause serial blasts in Delhi. The material on record against A-14 includes intercepted conversation between him and D-1 on mobile No. 9811004309, recovery of a Nepali Passport and a health card of Dubai with his photograph in fake names. There are three intercepted calls between A-14 and D-1 dated 10th, 16th and 17th September, 2008.

56. There is nothing in the charge sheet to show or indicate the specific role of A-14 either in the conspiracy or in the preparation or execution of plan in association with any of the other accused either directly or remotely. Since there is no indicator of specific role of accused Salman (A-14) in the charge sheet either as conspirator or a planner or as an executor of the serial blasts caused in Delhi on 13.09.2009 alongwith D-1 and other accused, the text of his intercepted conversation with D-1 would be considered as it would appear on the face of it. Text of his conversation with D-1 is general in nature, as would be between two persons acquainted with each other. The intercepted conversation either in part or as a whole do not even remotely indicate about any thing incriminating or suspicious. There is no material on record to indicate any overt act on the part of A-14 in the incident either at the stage of conspiracy or planning or final execution or thereafter. Few intercepted recorded conversations between him and D-1 cannot be made a material to raise strong suspicion about his involvement in the incident until and unless they are in some context related to the incident.

57. Though the charge sheet does indicate about his role in the serial blasts in other States. But the cases have been registered there separately and they are in the jurisdictional domain of the competent Courts. There is neither any material before this Court about those incidents nor those incidents come in the jurisdiction of this Court.

58. As per the material on record, A-14 was found carrying some documents with fake identity. Those documents have no relevance to the incident of serial blasts in Delhi and neither it has been alleged by the prosecution that they were used by A-14 for the purposes of any act or omission relating to Delhi Serial Blasts. In these circumstances, violation made by A-14 with respect to those documents if any would be subject matter of jurisdiction of the competent authorities in that regard under different laws.

59. On the basis of material on record, I am of the view that there is no prima-facie material on record to connect the accused A-14 with D-1 and other accused in the context of serial blasts in Delhi either at the stage of conspiracy or at the stage of planning or at the stage of execution. Therefore, I deem it just and proper to discharge accused Salman (A-14) in all the five cases. Accused Salman (A-14) is thus discharged in all the five cases.

60. The material on record shows five IEDs exploded at different places in Delhi on 13.09.2008 in between 05.55 pm to 06.30 pm i.e. in close proximity of time with each other. Their nature and type was similar to the unexploded IEDs found at three other places. The explosive substance used in the IEDs, their description and the distinctive timing devices used in them show the distinctive similarity and identical modus-operandi which strongly indicate that it was a preplanned work of the same group of persons who identified themselves by the name of "Indian Mujahiddin" as is evident from the FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 48 of 56 terror e-mail received around the time (06.27 pm) when capital city bore the brunt of serial blasts.

61. The material on record shows that deceased accused Mohd. Atif Amin (D-1) was residing at Flat No. 108 of L-18, Batla House, Delhi. Huge recovery of incriminating material from this premises in the nature of laptops and CDs etc. loaded with jehadi material, 02 pistols of 30 bore caliber, a travelling bag and a plastic tub with Ammonium Nitrate traces, an explosive substance, shows that this premises was used by D-1 and his associates for meetings to plan and make preparation to execute serial bomb blasts in Delhi, an illegal activity for unlawful purposes. The memory card of the mobile phone of D-1 with No. 9811004309 has been found to contain incriminating material in the form of video clippings and photographs relating to serial blasts in Ahmedabad and Delhi.

62. The material on record further shows that the deceased accused Mohd. Atif Amin (D-1) was one of the central figures in the planning and execution of the serial bomb blasts in Delhi alongwith accused Mohd. Sadique (A-6) besides Amir Raza and Batkal Brothers (absconding) from whom substantial incriminating material has been recovered including 02 revolvers, 01 carbine and 02 magazines with 38 live cartridges. In view of the fact that A-6 is an accused in the American Centre shootout at Calcutta in the year 2002 and there is an eye witness account in that case against A-2 creates strong suspicion FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 49 of 56 about his profile and unholy association with D-1 for unlawful purposes.

63. There is sufficient material on record to show that the accused Mohd. Shakeel (A-1), Mohd. Saif (A-2), Zeeshan Ahmad (A-3), Zia-Ur-Rehman (A-4), Saquib Niar (A-5), Mohd. Hakim (A-8) and Shahzad Ahmad (A-13) were either residing with deceased Atif Amin (D-1) in Flat No. 108 at L-18, Batla House, Delhi or they were in close and regular contact with him through his mobile.

64. The material on record show that accused Mohd. Sadique (A-6) and Kayamuddin Kapadia (A-7) were directly in touch with D-1 through mobile phones and through their movements and accused Mohd. Mansoor Ashgar Peerbhoy (A-9), Mubin Kadar Shaikh (A-10), Asif Bashiruddin Shaikh (A-11) and Mohd. Akbar Ismile Choudhary (A-12) were connected with D-1 through A-6 for the purpose of common unlawful objectives.

65. On the whole, the material on record in the form of direct evidence, various recoveries, circumstantial evidence and conduct, movement and association of the accused persons with each other as members of a group prima-facie show that they were associated and in close contact with each other in pursuance to a larger conspiracy to cause mass destruction of life and property through serial bomb blasts in the capital city of the country, as a result of which 26 innocent persons died and 135 persons were injured at various places FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 50 of 56 in Delhi on 13.09.2008 besides vast damage to property.

66. The manner of planning and execution, spread over in time and place with involvement of number of persons shows that the serial blasts in Delhi on 13.09.2008 were the consequence of an organized activity, which was not directed against any particular individual or any class for private or personal vengeance and enmity, but they were targeted against general public to cause public disorder, panic, terror and to disturb peace with the mission of vendetta against Government of India. Thus the above act prima- facie amounts to waging war against the Government of India pursuant to a conspiracy. Therefore, in my opinion, prima-facie offences punishable under Section 121-A/121 of the Indian Penal Code are made out against all the accused persons namely Mohd. Shakeel (A-1), Mohd. Saif (A-2), Zeeshan Ahmad (A-3), Zia-Ur- Rehma (A-4), Saquib Nisar (A-5), Mohd. Sadique (A-6), Kayamuddin Kapadia (A-7), Mohd. Hakim (A-8), Mohd. Mansoor Ashgar Peerbhoy (A-9), Mubin Kadar Shaikh (A-10), Asif Bashiruddin Shaikh (A-11), Mohd. Akbar Ismail Choudhary (A-12) and Shahjad @ Pappu (A-13)

67. Material on record shows that serial blasts in Delhi on 13.09.2008 and the terror e-mail sent to Electronic & Print Media around the time of blasts was the result of a criminal conspiracy involving the above 13 accused persons. Therefore, prima-facie offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against them.

68. The material on record prima-facie shows that in furtherance to the above referred criminal conspiracy,in the bomb blast caused at Gaffar Market in Karol Bagh, Delhi on 13.09.2008 at about 05.55 pm, 21 persons were killed, 64 persons were injured and property was damaged, with respect to which FIR was registered at PS Karol Bagh vide FIR No. 166/2008. Thus offence punishable under Section 302/307/427 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against all the above 13 accused persons in this regard.

69. The material on record prima-facie shows that in furtherance to the above referred criminal conspiracy, in the bomb blast caused at Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place on 13.09.2008 at about 06.30 pm, 02 persons were killed, 28 persons were injured and property was damaged, with respect to which FIR was registered at PS Connaught Place vide FIR No. 418/2008. Thus offence punishable under Section 302/307/427 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against all the above 13 accused persons in this regard.

70. The material on record prima-facie shows that in furtherance to the above referred criminal conspiracy, in the bomb blast caused at Central Park, Connaught Place on 13.09.2008 at about 06.30 pm, 03 persons were killed, 34 persons were injured and property was damaged, with respect to which FIR was registered at PS Connaught Place vide FIR No. 419/2008. Thus offence FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 52 of 56 punishable under Section 302/307/427 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against all the above 13 accused persons in this regard.

71. The material on record prima-facie shows that in furtherance to the above referred criminal conspiracy, in the bomb blast was caused at M-Block Market, Greater Kailash, Delhi on 13.09.2008 at about 06.30 pm, 07 persons were injured and property was damaged, with respect to which FIR was registered at PS Greater Kailash vide FIR No. 130/2008. Thus offence punishable under Section 307/427 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against all the above 13 accused persons in this regard.

72. The material on record shows that in furtherance of the above referred criminal conspiracy an explosive substance Ammonium Nitrate was used in the IEDs, five of which exploded and three were defused before the explosion. Therefore, prima-facie offence punishable under Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused persons with respect to explosions caused in the area of Karol Bagh, Barakhamba Road, Central Park and Greater Kailash and prima-facie offence punishable under Section 4 of Explosive Substances Act read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against all the 13 accused persons for FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 53 of 56 unlawful and malicious planting of IEDs in the dustbins at Regal Cinema, Central Park and Children Park at India Gate.

73. The material on record shows that in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy involving accused persons, a terror e-mail was sent to Electronic and Print Media on 13.09.2008 at about 06.27 pm on behalf of "Indian Mujahiddin" by hacking an unsecured "Wi-Fi"

connection in the name of M/s Kamran Power Control Private Limited at Mumbai and thus prima-facie offence punishable under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the above 13 accused persons.

74. The material on record shows that serial bomb blasts were caused by the accused persons under the conspiracy to threaten the unity, integrity, security and sovereignty of India, as a result of which many innocent persons died, a lot many had close encounter with death and massive destruction was caused to property. Such an activity falls within the definition of "Terrorist Act" defined in Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Material on record prima-facie shows that this act was committed by the 13 accused persons as a group and as members of an organization "Indian Mujahiddin" which prima-facie appears to have been involved in the terrorist acts. Therefore, prima-facie offence punishable under Section 18,16 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 54 of 56 are made out against all the 13 accused persons.

75. Five charge-sheets have been filed against the accused persons by the investigating agency for trial as five FIRs were registered since various cognizable offences took place at those places. As discussed above, five incidents which gave rise to five different FIRs are series of the same transaction and the nature of their causes and effects are the same. The alleged acts of the accused persons in causing these incidents constitute various offences under the Indian Penal Code, Explosive Substances Act, The Information Technology Act and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes the provision that when a series of acts are so connected together as to form the same transaction and multiple offences are committed in that transaction by the same persons, they may be charged with and tried at one trial for all such offences. This section further provides that even if the alleged acts of the accused persons constitute offences which fall in two or more separate definitions of any law in force, by which offences are defined or punished, the accused persons may be charged with and tried at one trial for each of such offences.

76. In this context it was held by the Apex Court in "State of AP V/s Ganeshwara Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1850" that substantial test for determining whether several acts are committed together so as to form one transaction depends upon whether they are so related to FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh Page 55 of 56 one and another in point of purpose or as cause and effect or as principle and subsidiary acts as to constitute one continuous action.

77. In view of above, since the series of acts committed by the 13 accused persons namely Mohd. Shakeel, Mohd. Saif, Zeeshan Ahmad, Zia-Ur-Rehman, Saquib Nisar, Mohd. Sadique, Kayamuddin Kapadia, Mohd. Hakim, Mohd. Mansoor Ashgar Peerbhoy, Mubin Kadar Shaikh, Asif Bashiruddin Shaikh, Mohd. Akbar Ismail Choudhary and Shahzad Ahmad are so connected with each other that they form part of the same transaction i.e. to cause vast destruction of life and property in Delhi in furtherance of the conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India, I am of the opinion that all the above referred accused persons are required to be tried together for the offences committed by them as their acts are connected with each other in point of time, cause and effect, principle and subsidiary acts which make part of one transaction.

78. Therefore, all the five cases are clubbed together for the purpose of framing the charges and trial. Case file of FIR No. 166/2008 of PS Karol Bagh shall be taken as the main file for recording the proceedings of trial.

Announced in the open Court                         (Santosh Snehi Mann)
on 05th February, 2011                Additional Sessions Judge (Central)
                                                  Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.


FIR No. 166/08; PS Karol Bagh                                     Page 56 of 56