Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Accused in Pune Bomb Blasts Case Due to Lack of Direct Evidence and Delay in Trial. Applicant Allegedly Supplied Firearms Not Used in Blasts; Court Relaxes Statutory Bar Under UAPA and MCOCA.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-20 23:27:45

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The applicant, Aslam Shabbir Sheikh @ Bunty Jagirdar, was arrested on 13th January 2013 in connection with C.R. No. 168 of 2012 (later re-registered as C.R. No. 9 of 2012) for his alleged involvement in five bomb blasts that occurred in Pune on 1st August 2012. The blasts were allegedly planned by members of the banned terrorist organization Indian Mujahideen to avenge the death of Quatil Siddique. The applicant was accused No. 8 and was charged under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Explosive Substances Act, Arms Act, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), and Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA). The prosecution alleged that the applicant had supplied firearms and ammunition to other accused persons, though these weapons were not used in the bomb blasts. The applicant sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, contending that he had no direct involvement in the blasts, no incriminating material was recovered at his instance, and he had been in custody for over 2 years and 8 months with no likelihood of trial concluding soon. The State opposed bail, citing the gravity of the offences and the bar under Section 43D(5) of UAPA and Section 21(4) of MCOCA. The court analyzed the role of the applicant, noting that the firearms allegedly supplied by him were not used in the blasts, and that the sanction under Section 23(2) of MCOCA was not obtained before filing the charge-sheet, rendering the bar under Section 21(4) inapplicable. The court also considered the delay in trial, as only 3 out of 27 witnesses had been examined, and the applicant had been in custody since 13th January 2013. The court held that the bar under Section 43D(5) of UAPA is not absolute and can be relaxed in cases of prolonged incarceration and delay in trial. The court granted bail to the applicant on certain conditions, including furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties, surrendering his passport, and reporting to the investigating officer periodically.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Bail - Section 439 CrPC - Grant of bail in terror-related offences - Applicant accused of supplying firearms not used in bomb blasts, no direct involvement in blasts, and no recovery of incriminating material at his instance - Held that bail can be granted considering the applicant's limited role, long incarceration of over 2 years and 8 months, and likelihood of delay in trial (Paras 1-27).

B) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Bail - Sections 16(1)(b), 18, 20, 23, 38, 39 - Applicability of Section 43D(5) - Bar on bail if allegations are prima facie true - Held that the bar under Section 43D(5) is not absolute and can be relaxed if there is no likelihood of trial being concluded within a reasonable time and the accused has been in custody for a substantial period (Paras 22-27).

C) Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 - Bail - Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) - Applicability of Section 21(4) - Bar on bail unless reasonable grounds exist that accused is not guilty - Held that the bar under Section 21(4) is not attracted as the sanction under Section 23(2) was not obtained prior to filing the charge-sheet, and the applicant's role is limited to alleged supply of firearms not used in the blasts (Paras 18-21).

Issue of Consideration

Whether the applicant, accused No. 8, is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to him, and the delay in trial.

Final Decision

The court allowed the bail application and directed the applicant to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of the like amount. The applicant was also directed to surrender his passport, not leave the country without court permission, report to the investigating officer once a month, and not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

Law Points

Bail
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
1967
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act
1999
Explosive Substances Act
Arms Act
Indian Penal Code
Section 439 CrPC
Delay in trial
Right to speedy trial
Parity with co-accused

Case Details

2015 LawText (BOM) (10) 108

Criminal Bail Application No. 1719 of 2013

2015-10-01

Revati Mohite Dere

Mr. A. P. Mundargi, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for the Applicant; Mr. Raja Thakare, Spl. P.P. with Ms. P. P. Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent-State

Aslam Shabbir Sheikh @ Bunty Jagirdar

The State of Maharashtra

Nature of Litigation

Criminal bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking enlargement on bail in connection with offences relating to bomb blasts, possession of explosives, arms, and organized crime.

Remedy Sought

The applicant, original accused No. 8, sought bail from the High Court of Bombay.

Filing Reason

The applicant was arrested on 13th January 2013 in connection with C.R. No. 168 of 2012 (later C.R. No. 9 of 2012) for alleged involvement in five bomb blasts in Pune on 1st August 2012, and had been in judicial custody since then.

Previous Decisions

The applicant's earlier bail applications were rejected by the trial court and the High Court. The present application was filed after the charge-sheet was filed and some witnesses were examined.

Issues

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC considering the nature and gravity of the offences under UAPA and MCOCA? Whether the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of UAPA and Section 21(4) of MCOCA applies to the applicant? Whether the delay in trial and the applicant's prolonged incarceration warrant grant of bail?

Submissions/Arguments

The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant had no direct involvement in the bomb blasts, the firearms allegedly supplied by him were not used in the blasts, no incriminating material was recovered at his instance, and he had been in custody for over 2 years and 8 months with no likelihood of trial concluding soon. The State opposed bail, submitting that the applicant was a member of a banned terrorist organization, the offences were serious, and the statutory bars under UAPA and MCOCA prevented grant of bail.

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of UAPA is not absolute and can be relaxed if there is no likelihood of trial being concluded within a reasonable time and the accused has been in custody for a substantial period. The bar under Section 21(4) of MCOCA is not attracted if the sanction under Section 23(2) was not obtained prior to filing the charge-sheet. Bail can be granted considering the limited role of the accused, long incarceration, and delay in trial.

Judgment Excerpts

The applicant is admittedly not involved in the commission of the bomb blasts that occurred on 1st August, 2012. The firearm weapons and cartridges allegedly supplied by the applicant were admittedly not used in the commission of the offence/bomb blasts that took place on 1st August, 2012. Nothing incriminating has been recovered at the instance of the applicant. The bar under Section 43D(5) of UAPA is not absolute and can be relaxed if there is no likelihood of trial being concluded within a reasonable time and the accused has been in custody for a substantial period. The sanction under Section 23(2) of MCOCA was not obtained prior to filing the charge-sheet, therefore the bar under Section 21(4) is not attracted.

Procedural History

The FIR was registered on 1st August 2012 at Deccan Police Station, Pune, and later transferred to ATS Mumbai. The applicant was arrested on 13th January 2013. Charge-sheet was filed on 8th April 2013. The applicant's earlier bail applications were rejected by the Sessions Court and the High Court. The present application was filed after the charge-sheet and examination of some witnesses. The application was reserved on 27th August 2015 and pronounced on 1st October 2015.