Mahmood Rajasa Saiyed v. State of Gujarat

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Arijit Pasayat
Anoop Sathasivam
Judgment Date: 2008-11-11
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed. Bail application under Section 49(6) and (7) of POTA was not interfered with; the Gujarat High Court’s decision denying bail and the broader rationale regarding prima facie involvement in criminal conspiracy were upheld.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mahmood Rajasa Saiyed

Respondents

State of Gujarat

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Nima Ramakrishan
• M.A. Chinnasamy

Counsels for Respondents

• Hemantika Wahi

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court judgment concerns an appeal under Section 34 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA) arising from a bail denial in a Gujarat terrorism case. The appellant, Mahmood Rajasa Saiyed, was arrested in POTA Case No. 12 of 2003 for offences under the IPC, Arms Act and POTA. An application for bail under Section 49(6) and (7) of POTA was rejected primarily because the appellant was found in possession of a country-made revolver and foreign-made pistols, with ten live cartridges recovered from a co-accused. A co-accused’s statement under Section 32 of POTA was also on record. The High Court of Gujarat (Division Bench) affirmed the trial court’s order, holding that the appellant did not deserve enlargement on regular bail, noting prima facie involvement in criminal conspiracy and the effect of notification under Section 4 of POTA, since the accused were charge-sheeted under Section 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy). The trial court and the High Court emphasized material such as weapon recovery and co-accused statements, and considered the broader context including the Godhra aftermath and alleged cross-border training. On this appeal, the Supreme Court, with Justice Arijit Pasayat delivering the judgment, declined to interfere, concluding the record supported non-release at the bail stage and dismissing the appeal."

Provisions of Law Cited

POTA, 2002 – Section 49(6)POTA, 2002 – Section 49(7)POTA, 2002 – Section 34POTA, 2002 – Section 4 (Notification)POTA, 2002 – Section 32 (Statements)IPC – Section 120B (Criminal Conspiracy)Arms Act (relevant provisions)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant urged that the bail application under Sections 49(6) and (7) of POTA should be considered on its merits, and that possession of arms, without evidence of imminent conspiracy or terroristic action, should not ipso facto deny bail. He contended that the material on record, including the co-accused’s Section 32 statements, did not conclusively establish prima facie involvement in criminal conspiracy at the bail stage, particularly since the notification under Section 4 of POTA was in effect only at the time of charge-sheet under Section 120B IPC. It was further argued that the Court should evaluate the entire material and that prolonged detention without expedited trial would violate fundamental rights.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argued that the appellant’s possession of country-made and foreign pistols, along with ten live cartridges recovered from a co-accused and the co-accused’s statements under Section 32, indicate prima facie involvement in criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC and justify denial of bail under Section 49(6)–(7) of POTA. The notification under Section 4 of POTA was in effect when the charge-sheet was framed, underscoring the seriousness of the conspiracy and the potential threat to public safety and national unity in the post-Godhra context. The High Court’s reasoning was that the entire material supported not enlarging the appellant on regular bail and that no interference was warranted."},

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 1035 ( ). A 8, l.4, ## MAHMOOD RAJASA SAIYED _v._ STATE OF GUJARAT (Criminal Appeal No. 1771 of 2008) ## NOVEMBER 11, 2008 [OR. ARIJIT PASAYAT ANOP. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] . .. _Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002_ - _s. 49(6), (7) ands. 34_ - _Arrest of appellant for offences punishable under /PC, Arms Act and POTA_ - _Bail application u/s. 49(6) and (7)_ - c _Dismissal of_ - _On the ground that appellant found in possession of fire-arms_ - _Ten live cartridges recovered from co-accused and his statement recorded uls. 32_ - _Notification u/s. 4 of POTA in effect when accused charge-sheeted for offence of criminal conspiracy_ - _Appeal u/s. 34_ - _Rejection_ D _of bail_ - _Interference with_ - _Held: Not called for._ . c CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1771 of 2008. From the final Judgment and Order dated 17.7.2006 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1432 of 2004. Nima Ramakrishan and. M.A. Chinnasamy for the Appellant. E F ## Hemantika Wahi for the Respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered by > , ' ~ OR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is t~ the order passed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the appeal filed under Section 34 of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (in short 'POTA'). 1035 G H / SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1036 [2008] 15 S.C.R. A 3. Factual details have been indicated in Criminal Appeal (Arising out of S.L.P (Crl.) No.4876of2006) disposed of today. 4. Appellant was arrested in connection with POTA Case No.12 of 2003 arising out of ICR No.6 of 2003 of the DCB B Crime Police Station, Ahmadabad for offences punishable under IPC, Arms Act and POTA. An application for bail was filed in terms of Section 49(6) and (7) of POT A. The bail application was rejected primarily on the ground that the appellant was found in possession of country made revolverand foreign made. pistols and undisputedly same was recovered C from his possession. Ten live cartridges were also recovered from another co-accused. The statement of the co-accused was recorded under Section 32 of POT A. The High Court held that it is not a fit _case_ for grant of bail. Though, there was allegation of illegal custody no material was placed in that regard. In view D of the reasons recorded by the High Court and the trial Court for rejecting the bail application, we are not inclined to interfere with the appeal. _>:_ 5. The Trial Court has observed as follows: E F G "It is true that, the statement of Anas does not disclose this · fact but, when the notification u/s 4 of the POT A is in effect and when the accused are charge-l?heeted for the offence u/s 120..:s, criminal conspiracy, the Court sees no reason · as fo why at this juncture the discretion should be used in his favour especially when the criminal conspiracy is alleged to be intended by the accused to· terrorize the people of a particular section as well as to shake the integrity and unity of the nation in the aftermath of Godhra incident where some of the accused have also taken the training from the neighbouring country Pakistan in deadly weapons, arms and ammunitions and who also intended to make use of that training by procuring weapons to execute the said conspiracy which are allegedly supplied by the present applicant accused." I H MAHMOODRAJASA SAIYED _v._ STATE OF GUJARAT 1037 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] ). A ' 6. The High Court has also observed in this regard as follows: ~ '. ~ ·"The appellant was found in possession of country made revolver ~nd foreign made pistol and the same was recovered from his pocket. The panchnama in respect B thereof was prepared. The joint panchnama, which was prepared also mentions about the 10 live cartridges which were recovered from another accused Mohd. Tarik. The statements of the co-accused recorded under Section 32 of the POT A have been perused by us and prima facie, c the statements given by the co-accused indicate involvement of the appellant in the commission of crime. The contention raised by the learned Advocate for the · appellant that the statement of the co-accused Anas Machiswala does not disclose prima facie involvement of D the appellant is without any substance, as no!ifi~tion under Section 4 of the POT A was in effect when ttie accused was charge-sheeted, and since the accused was chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Section 1208, which is for criminal conspiracy, we see there was no reason to enlarge the appellant on regular bail. With regard E to the statement of co-accused, which was recorded under section 32 of the POT A, save and except the statement recorded under section 32 of the POTA, further corroboration was also forthcoming, Thus, the Court has to look into the entire material which was available against F the accused. The prima facie evidence was available against the appellant and as he was found in possession of the fire-arms, the learned Special Judge has rightly not used the discretion to enlarge the appellant on bail and we also see no reason to interfere with the order passed by G the learned Judge in appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 34 of the POT A. As regards the next submission of learned advocate for the appellant that the accused has remained in judicial custody for nearly two years, .we have considered the provisions of sub-sections H H 1038 SUPREME COURT RIIPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R. A (6) and (7) of section 49 _qf_ the POT A and the rigorous imposed therein. The rigorous would definitely go with the completion of. the period of one year as -contemplated under sub-section (7) of section 49 of the POT A, but considering the provisions of section 439 of the Code of B Criminal Procedure along with evidence available against the accused, in our view, the accuseq, has not made out a case for this enlargement on regular bail." 7. However, it is stated by learned counsel for the C respondent-State that the trial is at the advance stage. The trial Court is requested to complete the trial as early as practicable. 8. The appeal is dismissed. N.J. Appeal dismissed.