Bombay High Court: In an appeal seeking bail on ground of parity, merits and long incarceration for matter involving offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 9-B of Explosives Act, 1884, Section 120-B of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 16, 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’), the Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere* and Gauri Godse, JJ. enlarged the accused on bail considering that the recovery made from house and godown were not under his name, and that the trial may take long while he had already been in custody since 5 years.
Background
The prosecution claimed that the accused along with the co-accused were part of a conspiracy to destabilize India and destroy India’s sovereignty and integrity by indulging in some terrorist activities. He was also accused of being an active member of the organization named Sanatan Sanstha, which the other co-accused were also alleged to be the members and whose object was stated to form a ‘Hindu Rashtra’ by secretly forming a terrorist gang. They collected/prepared crude bombs and stored explosives in the accused’s house and godown and conducted recce of those places.
Court’s Analysis of Facts
Noting the fact of the other co-granted bail by the Supreme Court and the High Court, and the reasons so considered while enlarging those persons on bail, that ‘there was no likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial’, recovery of crude bombs from property not owned by the accused person by his ancestral property. Regarding allegation of holding training camps for imparting training to members of Sanatan Sanstha, the Court had earlier noted that there was no physical evidence in existence of such training camps nor any such evidence was brought to the notice by the prosecution, and had also noted that “Sanatan Sanstha is an organization which is not declared to be a banned or terrorist organization or a frontal organization by the terrorist group within the meaning and contemplation of UAPA Act.”
Coming back to the accused in the instant matter, the Court highlighted regarding recovery of 8 crude bombs from his residence prior to his arrest, not being under Section 27 of Evidence Act, 1872, while the house was not owned by him but his father. On recovery of 12 crude bombs from the godown allegedly used by the appellant, that godown also did not stand in his name but one Om Sai Developers, also not being one under Section 27 of Evidence Act. The Court further explained that recovery of diary at the appellant’s behest, the handwriting expert had opined that it did not contain appellant’s handwriting.
The prosecution claimed that entries indicated towards some planning done by the accused and other co-accused regarding preparation of crude bombs, but the Court stated that the prosecution was not able to show corroboration of such claim by any other evidence. The Court noted that the minimum sentence which could be awarded under UAPA Act was 5 years, which may be extended to life imprisonment. The accused was in custody for the past 5 years, and the prosecution intended to examine almost 417 witnesses, while only 4 witnesses were examined by then. The Court reiterated the fact that the other three co-accused were enlarged on bail.
Bail under UAPA Case
The Court relied on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 and Angela Harish Sontakke v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 3 SCC 723 wherein, it was expressed on the lines that “no doubt the charges were serious but the seriousness of the charges will have to be balanced with certain other factors like the period of custody suffered and the likely period within which the trial can be expected to be completed.”
Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the order dated 14-12-2022 and directed the accused to be enlarged on bail while imposing certain conditions of surety of Rs 50,000, appearance before the Trial Court, not to tamper with prosecution evidence, etc.
[Vaibhav Subhash Raut v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2139, decided on 20-09-2023]
Judgment by: Justice Revati Mohit Dere
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellant: Advocate Sana Raees Khan, Advocate Aniket Pardeshi
For State: Additional Public Prosecutor K.V. Saste
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
