Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Aatif Nasir Mulla, was an accused in POTA Special Case No. 2 of 2003 pending before the Special Court, Mumbai, for his alleged involvement in a criminal conspiracy to cause bomb blasts at Mulund, Vile Parle, and Mumbai Central. He filed a bail application (Bail Application No. 2 of 2004) along with two other miscellaneous applications, all of which were rejected by the Special Court on 15 December 2004. Aggrieved, he appealed under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. The appellant's counsel argued that the only evidence against the appellant was the confessional statement of a co-accused and the recovery of an AK-56 rifle, and that the Supreme Court had diluted the stringent bail provisions under POTA. The court, however, held that the confessional statement of a co-accused and the recovery of a weapon are relevant considerations for forming a prima facie case. The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the Special Court's order rejecting bail.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail under POTA - Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, Section 49 - Confessional Statement of Co-Accused - The court considered whether the confessional statement of a co-accused and recovery of an AK-56 rifle constitute sufficient material to deny bail. Held that the confessional statement of co-accused and recovery of weapon are relevant considerations for forming a prima facie case, and bail was rightly rejected by the Special Court (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, considering the confessional statement of co-accused and recovery of AK-56 rifle.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The order of the Special Court rejecting bail is upheld.
Law Points
- Bail under POTA
- Confessional statement of co-accused
- Prima facie case
- Recovery of weapon
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (12) 32
Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2005
D. G. Deshpande, V. M. Kanade
Mr. R. M. Agrawal with Mr. M. H. Solkar for the Appellant; Mr. S. R. Borulkar, P.P, Mrs. P. H. Kantharia, APP and Mr. D. S. Mhaispurkar, APP for the Respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against rejection of bail under POTA
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought bail in POTA Special Case No. 2 of 2003
Filing Reason
Bail application rejected by Special Court on 15.12.2004
Previous Decisions
Special Court rejected bail application on 15.12.2004
Issues
Whether the confessional statement of a co-accused and recovery of an AK-56 rifle constitute sufficient material to deny bail under POTA.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the only evidence against him is the confessional statement of a co-accused and recovery of AK-56, and that the Supreme Court has diluted bail provisions under POTA.
State opposed bail, relying on the confessional statement and recovery.
Ratio Decidendi
The confessional statement of a co-accused and recovery of a weapon are relevant considerations for forming a prima facie case under POTA, and bail can be denied on that basis.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard learned counsel for the appellant - original accused no.2 and learned P.P. for the State.
Appellant - Accused is one of the accused in POTA Special Case No. 2 of 2003 pending before the Special Court, Mumbai.
The charge against the accused along with others, is that there was a criminal conspiracy to cause bomb blast, which, in fact, occurred at Mulund, Vile Parle and Mumbai Central pursuant to the conspiracy.
Procedural History
The appellant filed a bail application (Bail Application No. 2 of 2004) along with two other miscellaneous applications before the Special Court, Mumbai. All were rejected on 15.12.2004. The appellant then filed this appeal under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002: Section 49
