Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

However, as the said plan could not be executed, it was decided to cause the bomb blasts.

3. The present applicant is original accused No. 8, who was arrested in the aforesaid C.R on 13 th January, 2013. Mr. Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant contended; (i) That the applicant was ba.1719.13.doc admittedly not involved in the commission of the bomb blasts that occurred on 1st August, 2012; (ii) That the firearm weapons and cartridges allegedly supplied by the applicant were admittedly not used in the commission of the offence/bomb blasts that took place on 1st August, 2012. He submitted that infact one pistol allegedly sold by the present applicant was recovered from Irfan Mustafa Landge (accused No. 4) and that two pistols were recovered at the instance of Firoz @ Hamza (accused No. 3) in a Delhi Arms case. He submitted that in the Delhi Arms case, the present applicant has not been arraigned as an accused; (iii) Nothing incriminating has been recovered at the instance of the present applicant nor is there any confession made by the applicant under Section 18 of the MCOC Act. He submitted that the only alleged material as against the applicant is, the confessional statement of the co-accused Irfan Landge, which is recorded under Section 18 of the MCOC Act. According to him, the said confession of the co-accused Irfan Landge does not, in any way, show that the applicant was involved in the conspiracy to commit the bomb blast / in the commission of the bomb blasts that took place on 1 st August, 2012. He submitted that at the highest, the confessional statement shows that firearms and cartridges were sold by the applicant to Irfan Landge, much ba.1719.13.doc prior to the hatching of the conspiracy to commit the bomb blasts. He submitted that infact, the firearms and cartridges were allegedly sold by the applicant to Irfan Landge (original accused No. 4) and Imran Khan (original accused No. 2) for a consideration; (iv) Lastly, he submitted that merely because it has come in the confessional statement of the co-accused that the applicant shared Jihadi ideology, that by itself, is not sufficient to show the complicity of the applicant in the present case.

He submitted that the provision of Section 3(2) of the MCOC Act is para materia with Section 18 of the UAPA Act. He submitted that considering the material on record, it cannot be said that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offences with which he has been charged. He submitted that the present offence has been committed when the applicant was on bail.

(v) that statements of witnesses reflect the jihadi attitude of the applicant, his involvement in unlawful activities and his association with members of terrorist organisations.

8. The aforesaid five grounds are set out in the final report as evidence collected as against the present applicant. As far as the memorandum panchnama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, of recovery of a firearm and cartridges at the instance of Irfan Landge ba.1719.13.doc (original accused No. 4) is concerned, that is a matter of record. The facts as disclosed in the memorandum statement being inadmissible, except to the extent of discovery of weapons, cannot be considered. The confessional statement of Irfan Landge (original accused No. 4) was recorded under Section 18 of the MCOC Act on 9 th January, 2013. Certain paragraphs are being reproduced which have been relied upon by both, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Special P.P. The relevant paragraphs read thus: