Bombay High Court: The instant appeal was filed against the order passed by the Special Judge (MCOCA) denying bail to the accused (appellant) in Pune Serial blasts case. The Division Bench of A. S. Gadkari* and Rajesh S. Patil, JJ., held that the accused had already undergone pre-trial incarceration of more than 12.5 years and the possibility of trial concluding in the near future appears to be remote. Additionally, the accused had no criminal antecedents and he was not charged under Sections 307, 120-B as well as Section 302 the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Thus, the Court quashed and set-aside the order of the Special Judge (MCOCA) and granted conditional bail to the appellant.
Background
On 1-8-2012, approximately between 19.25 to 23.30 hours five low intensity explosions took place in Pune. Apart from five bomb blasts, one live bomb was found in the carrier basket of Hero Street Ranger black-coloured bicycle, parked opposite Zodiac shop on Jangli Maharaj Road, Pune. The same was defused by the Bomb Detection and Disposal Squad. Thereafter, an FIR was registered with Deccan Police Station under Sections 307, 435 and 120-B of IPC, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sections 3, 25 of the Arms Act 1959, Sections 16(1) (b), 18, 20, 23, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Amendment 2008, Sections 3(1) (ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (‘MCOC Act’). The case was subsequently transferred for further investigation with ATS Police Station, Mumbai.
During the course of investigation, it was revealed that, the motive behind commission of the said crime, was to cause mass destruction of life and property and to strike terror in the minds of general public at large. One person was also injured in the blasts. The accused persons had conspired to cause the said blasts, to take revenge of the death of Qateel Siddique, an Indian Mujahedeen operative, who was killed in Yerwada Prison, Pune, on 8-6-2012. In total 9 accused persons were arrested for the said crime. The appellant has been arrested on 26-12-2012 and had been behind bars since then. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet.
The appellant filed a bail application before Special Judge (MCOCA), Bombay but the same was rejected under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act) before the present Court.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that co-accused Hamza Abdul Hameed Sayyed (accused 3) who passed away in judicial custody on 7-4-2024 gave confessional statement under Section 18 of MCOC Act, which indicated the role of the appellant in the whole organised crime.
Based on that confessional statement the allegations against the appellant (accused 6) were that he prepared forged and/or bogus documents on his computer and provided it to the co-accused Munib Iqbal Menon (accused 5) for obtaining SIM cards for mobile phones. The said mobile phones were thereafter used by other co-accused for inter se conversations. The appellant also provided his shop premises for allegedly hatching criminal conspiracy for planning the said bomb blasts. Thus, the Court opined that since the accused who had given the confessional statement had passed away, such statement was of no use at the prosecution stage.
The Court pointed out that the appellant had already gone pre-trial incarceration for more than 12.5 years while minimum and maximum imprisonment for the offences which the appellant was accused of, was 5 years and life imprisonment respectively. It was also noted that the Trial Court record indicated that Section 307 read with Section 120-B of the IPC as well as Section 302 IPC did not apply to the accused and he did not have any criminal antecedents. Additionally, the prosecution had submitted list of 170 witnesses in support of their case but had examined only 27 of them by 11-8-2025.
The Court opined that the role attributed to the accused in present crime was similar to that of co-accused Munib Memon, thus the principle of parity with co-accused Munib Iqbal Memon squarely applied to the appellant and therefore the appellant was entitled to be released on bail.
Accordingly, the Court quashed and set aside the order passed by Special Judge (MCOCA) and held that since the appellant had already undergone 12.5 years of pre-trial incarceration and the possibility of trial concluding in the near future appears to be remote. Furthermore, the appellant did not have any criminal antecedents. Thus, keeping in mind the fundamental right to speedy trial of the accused enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution the appellant was released on conditional bail on executing a PR bond of Rs.1,00,000 with one or more solvent local sureties in the like amount.
[Farooq Shaukat Bagwan v. State of Maharashtra, Crl. Apl. No..300 of 2024, decided on: 9-9-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice A. S. Gadkari
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate for the Appellant- Mubin Solkar, Tahir Hussain, Anas Shaikh, Hemal Shah, Tahera Qureshi, Advocates
Advocate for the Respondent- Vinod Chate, A.P.P.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
