Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

24. The application of the Appellant for bail is, however, strongly resisted by the Intervenor before the Special Court and this Court also. It may be stated that the Intervenor in the case is the father of the deceased, who had died in the bomb-blast at Malegaon. The Special Court has, vide its detail order dated 17 th June 2016, allowed the Intervention Application, considering that as prosecution is giving its 'no objection' for release of the Appellant on bail, practically, there was no one opposing the Bail Application and, hence, in order to have fair hearing on the point of Bail Application, 15 APEAL-545-16-Pragya Singh.doc it would be appropriate to give an opportunity of hearing to the Intervenor, who was the real aggrieved person, as his son has succumbed to death in the bomb-blast. In this Appeal also, on the same grounds, we have also allowed the Intervention Application and heard learned Senior Counsel for the Intervenor Shri. B.A. Desai, who has strongly resisted the request of the Appellant to be released on bail.

25. According to learned Senior Counsel for Intervenor, prima facie, there is sufficient material on record implicating the Appellant even at this stage, as the report of the investigation carried out by ATS has to be read conjointly with the Investigation Report submitted by NIA. It is submitted by him that, when earlier Bail Application was filed by the Appellant before the Special Court bearing Exhibit-2400, the Special P.P. on behalf of NIA has strongly resisted the said Bail Application. Since then, there is no substantial change in the circumstances and despite that, this time, NIA has given 'no objection' for allowing Appellant's Bail Application. It is urged that under the garb of carrying out further investigation, NIA has conducted re-investigation and, that too, not of the offence but of the investigation made by the ATS. As this re-investigation is made 16 APEAL-545-16-Pragya Singh.doc by NIA without the order of the higher courts, that investigation itself is illegal. According to learned counsel for the Intervenor, the investigation conducted by NIA is unfair and tainted. NIA has no power to question the reliability of the investigation conducted by the ATS. According to learned counsel for the Intervenor, both, the Trial Court and this Court, have already held, while deciding previous Bail Applications of the Appellant, that, there is sufficient material on record to show involvement of the Appellant in commission of the offences. It is held that, Appellant is the principal conspirator, as having supplied not only the motor-cycle but also the manpower for causing the bomb-blast. Hence, according to learned Senior Counsel for Intervenor, merely because NIA has dropped the charges against Appellant, she cannot be released on bail; especially having regard to the gravity and seriousness of the offence, and the apprehension of Appellant further tampering the prosecution witnesses and thereby thwarting the course of justice.

50. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the Intervenor that, at this stage, when the investigation conducted by the ATS, implicating the accused with the offences under MCOC Act and the investigation conducted by NIA stand side by side, they have to be read conjointly. It is, therefore, submission of learned counsel for the Intervenor that the confessional statements of Accused Nos.7, 10 and 12 are required to be considered, along with other material on record, while deciding prima facie case of the prosecution against the Appellant for the purpose of deciding her Bail Application. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the Intervenor, has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Nalini & Ors., (1999) 5 SCC 253.

35 APEAL-545-16-Pragya Singh.doc

55. Once it is held that the provisions of the MCOC Act are not to be considered for deciding the Bail Application, then the next question arising for consideration is, 'whether the confessional statements of Accused Nos.7, 10 and 12 can be taken into consideration for deciding these Bail Applications'?

56. As stated above, according to learned counsel for the Intervenor, these confessional statements can be taken into consideration even if the provisions of MCOC Act are held to be not applicable, as that observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court pertains only in respect of applicability of Section 21(b) of MCOC Act, which pertains to stringent provisions of bail. According to learned counsel for the Intervenor, the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court nowhere reflects that, while deciding the Bail Application of the Appellant, confessional statements of co-accused should be excluded from consideration. According to learned counsel for Intervenor, further observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.96 make it clear that the Bail Applications of Appellant and other co-accused were to be decided not on the touch-stone of Section 21(b) of MCOC Act, but on its own merits, as the Hon'ble Apex Court has then referred to the parameters for granting bail, as laid down in the 36 APEAL-545-16-Pragya Singh.doc landmark decisions of State of U.P., through CBI, Vs. Amarmani Tripathi, 2005 (8) SCC 21, and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 921.