The State, Reptd By The National ... vs Saddam Hossain,S/O Kafiulddin on 7 November, 2016
It is not his case that he was picked up from West
Bengal. It is not even a case in which train he has traveled and with what
ticket and at which bogie of any train, for otherwise not involved in any
previous case or activity with any banned organization or entity from the
prosecution material other than mentioned in panchanama of so called
disclosure of the conspiracy with A1 and A2. Once he himself from bail
application averments and arguments through advocate submits that he came
to meet A.2 at Vijayawada and when they were coming from the railway
station to the house of A.2 at Kesarapalli, Gannavaram Mandal, the police
allegedly apprehended on 28.03.2018, no record relevant as referred supra
submitted much less with better and material particulars required to consider
from facts in his exclusive knowledge, as there is no any record submitted as
to any search warrant petition filed or any notice given to the police or at
least e-mail message given to police immediately on 28.03.2018 or at least on
29.03.2018 much less on 30.03.2018 but for the filing of the Writ Petition on
house motion on 31.05.2018; even the case of the police is positive that they
apprehended on 30.05.2018 in the afternoon at Yetipaka police station
jurisdiction as per said panchanama of apprehension, arrest disclosure and
seizure referred supra. Once such is the case, even taken for arguments sake
of Section 20 of the UAP Act, not applicable, once Section 18 of the Act r/w
120-B IPC, and Sections 10,13,38 and 39 attracts with reference to Section 25
of the IA Act, and Sections 5 and 6 of the ES Act, and once these are serious
offences and from the face value of the prosecution material it shows
nefarious conspiracy and plan to do away the Vice Chancellor and therefore to
create a commotion and law and order problem, the mere agreement and
privy to commit an offence, leave about even a preparation is enough from
the provisions of the Act besides that of 120-B IPC an agreement is enough; by
taking into consideration of all these facts and from the Division Bench
expression of this High Court in this regard reiterated in State Vs. Saddam
Hossain that a perusal of the order granting bail by the Sessions Court shows
failed to know the mandatory requirements of Section 43(D)(5) proviso and
there is no record of finding as to whether the accusation against the accused
is prima facie true or not and without which the granting bail is unsustainable
and thereby, set aside the order by allowing the appeal.