Delhi High Court: The present appeal was filed on behalf of appellant under the provisions of Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency, 2008 (‘NIA Act’) seeking bail in FIR registered on 13-9-2008. Appellant was facing trial before the Court of Sessions for the offences punishable under Sections 121, 121-A, 122, 123, 302, 307, 323, 427, and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’); Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (‘the Act’); Sections 16, 18, 19, 20, and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’); and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’). The Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait* and Shalinder Kaur, JJ., considered the nature and seriousness of allegations and opined that appellant did not deserve to be released on bail. Thus, dismissed the present appeal.
Background
On 13-9-2008, a terrorist group “Indian Mujahideen” sent an e-mail from email ID ‘al_arbi_delhi@yahoo.com’ to various electronic/print media of Pakistan, India, and other countries including Darul Uloom Deoband, Central Waqf Council, Al Jamia Tussalafiah (Markazi Darul-Uloom Varanasi) with the heading “MESSAGE OF DEATH” and claiming intense, accurate, and successive bomb attacks exactly five minutes from the said mail. The said email also had slide containing pictures of their previous blasts in India and a PDF file claiming responsibility of present and previous serial blasts in Rajasthan and Gujarat and challenged the Indian Government that there was no shortage of explosives or lack of manpower with them and they were extremely capable to shed blood anywhere anytime in India and threatened to do whatever Indian Government could do to stop the blasts. In pursuance to the serial bomb blast incidents that occurred on 13-9-2008 in different parts of Delhi, five cases were registered.
On 23-9-2008 and 24-9-2008, some accused persons were arrested by Mumbai police who disclosed about involvement of appellant with co-accused Mansoor Asghar Peerboy, Akbar Ismail Chaudhary and Asif Basir Shaikh, all residents of Pune, Maharashtra; in Delhi Bomb Blast case and revealed that “Media Cell” of Indian Mujahideen was being run by them. Appellant was formally arrested on 12-3-2009 and two HCL Laptops, wireless routers adapters for sending e-mails, a mobile phone, and a black and blue coloured bag were recovered. Appellant challenged the order dated 28-4-2022 whereby his bail application was rejected by the Trial Court.
Respondent in its Status Report dated 18-8-2022, opposed the release of appellant on bail, stating that there was sufficient material against him and other associates, who hatched conspiracy of serial blasts in Delhi, which resulted in explosions causing killing of 26 people and injury to 135 people.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that the Trial Court held that Mubeen Kadar Shaikh and his co-accused Mansoor Asghar Peerbhoy had committed offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, and 427 read with Section 120-B of IPC; under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act read with Section 120-B of IPC; under Sections 18, 16, and 20 of UAPA and under the IT Act and directed that these accused shall be tried together. The Trial Court considered the nature and seriousness of allegations and statutory bar under Section 43-D(5) of UAPA, and thus dismissed appellant’s bail application, while ensuring to take up the trial on every Saturday for expeditious disposal.
The Court noted that the grounds of bail raised by appellant before this Court were not distinct than the one raised before the Trial Court. Further, the Court noted that appellant, who was a qualified Computer Engineer, and had been alleged to be an active member of Media Cell of Indian Mujahideen and as a part of large conspiracy, had prepared the text and content of terror mail sent in the name of Indian Mujahideen and for this purpose, he had visited Mumbai and purchased laptops; he was identified by the shop owner from where the said laptops were purchased and used for sending the warning email and besides the two laptops, a spy finder, R.F detector were recovered from his possession. Thus, the Court opined that appellant did not deserve to be released on bail.
The Court opined that it raised a query to the Additional Public Prosecutor for State regarding specific stage of the trial and it was noted that total 497 witnesses were cited, out of which 198 witnesses were dropped and so far, 282 witnesses were already examined and only 17 witnesses were left to be examined. The Court noted that the Special Court was conducting proceedings on every Saturday to expedite conclusion of trial, which was already at its fag end. However, considering that appellant was behind bars since 2008, the Court directed the Special Court concerned to conclude the trial in the present case by taking it up at least twice a week. Thus, the Court dismissed the present appeal.
Further, the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Shalinder Kaur, JJ., in Crl. A. 450 of 2022, dismissed an appeal filed by Saquib Nisar against the impugned order dated 23-7-2022 passed by the Court of Sessions whereby his application seeking bail was dismissed, and opined that the allegations against him and the role attributed to him, did not persuade the Court to release him on bail. Saquib Nisar was alleged to be one of the associates of the terror outfit “Indian Mujahideen”, who was also involved in Delhi serial bomb blasts on 13-9-2008. In another case, Crl. A. 947 of 2023, the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain, JJ., dismissed an appeal filed by Mansoor Asghar Peerbhoy seeking setting aside of order dated 8-4-2022, whereby his application seeking bail was dismissed by the Special Court in view of statutory bar contained under Section 43-D(5) of UAPA. Mansoor Asghar Peerbhoy was alleged to be leading the “Media Group” of banned terror outfit “Indian Mujahideen” and with the help of his associates, he had sent the email to Electronic and Print media claiming responsibilities of Delhi serial bomb blasts dated 13-9-2008.
[Mubeen Kadar Shaikh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2979, decided on 29-4-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Nitya Ramakrishnan, Senior Advocate; Siddharth Sunil, Aditya Wadhwa, Advocates
For the Respondent: Ritesh Kumar Bahri, Additional Public Prosecutor
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
