Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Tissue paper in Birju Kishorekumar Salla vs State Of Gujarat on 9 May, 2018Matching Fragments
R/CR.A/385/2018 JUDGMENT
4. The precise facts of the present case for the purpose of determination of this bail application may be mentioned that on 30.10.2017 Shivani Malhotra, a cabin crew member of the Jet Airways flight No.9W 339 which was on the way from Mumbai to Delhi, soon after its departure from Mumbai at 2.55 AM, approximately at about 3.20 AM, observed that tissue papers from the tissue-paper box in the toilet near to the Business Class seats of the plane were not coming out. She reported the matter to Nitika Joneja, Cabin Crew Supervisor of the flight, who then went to the toilet with a fresh box of tissue papers. While trying to fix the issue Nitika Joneja noticed that a folded white paper sheet was stuck inside the tissue paper box which she took out. On opening the folded paper she noticed the following note typed on the paper in Urdu and English :
contains explosive bomb and wl blast if you land Delhi.
Allah is Great"
4.2 The paper also contained a typed written text in Urdu language, above the text in English which revealed a threat regarding hijackers on board and explosive bomb in the cargo area of the aircraft. Captain/Pilot of the aircraft, Jay Jariwala with the assistance of the co-pilot Ashutosh Nevase, communicated about the discovery of the 'threat note' to the Air Traffic Control Ahmedabad and upon getting suitable instructions landed the plane at the Ahmedabad Domestic Airport. , 4.3 Upon getting information from Shri M.R. Desai, Airport Manager, Domestic Airport, Ahmedabad about emergency landing of the flight at the Ahmedabad Airport due to the threat of hijacking and planting of bomb, police officers of the Crime Branch, Ahmedabad City reached Ahmedabad Airport. During enquiries one of the passengers travelling in the Business Class, namely Birju Salla s/o Kishor Salla r/o 1502, 15th Floor, Shripati Arcade, Nana Chowk, Mumbai admitted before the officers of the Ahmedabad Crime Branch that the 'threat note' was placed by R/CR.A/385/2018 JUDGMENT him in-between the tissue papers in the tissue- paper box in the toilet of the plane. Accordingly, case FIR No. l-85/2017 u/s 3(1), 3(2)(a) and 4(b) of the Anti-Hijacking Act, 2016 was registered on 30.10.2017 at the Detection of Crime Branch PS (DCB PS), Ahmedabad and the accused Birju Salla was arrested by the DCB Ahmedabad in this case on the same day.
17.7 Investigation revealed that sometimes later when Shivani Malhotra went to the toilet near to the Business class, she noticed that tissue papers were not coming out from the tissue paper box. After coming out of the toilet she informed Nitika Joneja about the same who (Nitika Joneja) took a fresh box of tissue papers and went inside the toilet. While putting the tissue paper in the tissue paper box Nitika Joneja noticed a folded white paper sheet stuck inside the tissue paper box which she took out. Upon opening the said white paper sheet, Nitika Joneja found that it contained a typed note in Urdu and English language, the text of which in English read as the following:
14. On overall consideration of the appeal on hand, we are noticing that the accused is well placed person and is having young age of about 37 years. The evidence on record clearly indicates that the accused in his office itself generated the aforesaid threat note, thereafter he got it translated into Urdu, then he got it printed from his own printer, placed into the bag and carried upto aircraft which was in-service and upon finding opportunity, he placed the said threat note into tissue paper box. All these sorts of efforts and actions on the part of the appellant R/CR.A/385/2018 JUDGMENT accused itself clearly indicative of his mind set as well as his actions and gravity of such actions and result might occurred due to such sort of actions on his part. Though the accused was travelling in the said aircraft till his interrogation, he did not disclose to any crew member that aforesaid threat note was mere prank hoax. The said fact itself is indicative that he intended to receive the said threat note to be credible information. Only upon his apprehending during the course of interrogation, the accused revealed and pointed out everything as to how he generated threat note and journey upto placing threat note into tissue paper box depicts its mind set. In that view of the matter, the contention of Mr.Raju, learned senior advocate that threat note ought not to have been taken as credible information and offence is not revealing as defined under section 3 of the Act is unacceptable in view of the aforesaid factual scenario. The link connected during the course of investigation not only by the local police but while the NIA took over the investigation got verified the statements of the witnesses and got opinion of the expert from the FSL which also clearly indicates that generation of threat note from laptop belonging to the accused as well as the link is being established till inserting the threat note into tissue paper box which R/CR.A/385/2018 JUDGMENT indicative of involvement of the accused and we are of the considered opinion that prima facie the accused is involved in the offence as defined under section 3 of the Act. A careful perusal of the provisions of section 3 of the Act read with sub-section (2) clearly indicate that a person shall also be deemed to have committed offence of hijacking specified in sub-section (1) if such person makes a threat to commit such offence or unlawfully and intentionally causes any person to receive such threat under circumstances which indicate that the threat is credible. As soon as the said threat note came into the hands of the crew member, the procedure provided as per the Standard Operating Procedure was followed and took the said threat to be credible and therefore, the provisions of section 3 of the Act got attracted as in our considered opinion, constructive seizure and control are being established on the part of the writer of such threat note. In that view of the matter, the contention of Mr.Raju, learned senior advocate that no provisions of the Act defining hijacking is attracted is not acceptable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the clear provisions of law.