Case Note & Summary
The judgment under consideration arises from a criminal appeal filed by Accused No.1 against the Special Court's order rejecting her bail application in the notorious 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case. The incident occurred on 29 September 2008 when an explosive device fitted on an LML Freedom motorcycle exploded at Malegaon, resulting in six deaths and injuries to around 101 persons, along with property damage. The initial investigation was conducted by the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS), Mumbai, which arrested the appellant on 23 October 2008 after discovering that she was the registered owner of the motorcycle used in the blast. The ATS alleged that the appellant and other accused were part of a criminal conspiracy hatched by members of an organization called 'Abhinav Bharat', led by accused No.9, a serving Army officer. The conspiracy aimed to turn India into a 'Hindu Rashtra' and involved training for guerrilla warfare, collection of funds, and planning of bomb blasts to avenge alleged jihadi activities. According to the ATS, a meeting held in Bhopal on 11-12 April 2008 culminated in a plan to cause the Malegaon explosion, wherein the appellant undertook to provide her motorcycle and manpower, while accused No.9 provided RDX explosives. The investigation revealed that the motorcycle's engine and chassis numbers were erased but successfully restored, linking it to the appellant. The ATS filed a charge-sheet on 20 September 2009 against eleven accused, including the appellant, under various sections of the IPC, Explosive Substances Act, Arms Act, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOC Act). The case witnessed a complex procedural journey: the Special Court initially discharged the accused from MCOC Act provisions, but the High Court reversed that order, and ultimately the Supreme Court directed that the appellant's bail application be reconsidered fresh, excluding the MCOC Act provisions. Following the Supreme Court's direction, the appellant filed a fresh bail application on 21 September 2015, which was rejected on 7 November 2015. Subsequently, the NIA filed a supplementary report, and the appellant moved another bail application (Exhibit 3021), which was rejected by the Special Court on 28 June 2016. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Bombay High Court. The appeal was heard by a Division Bench and reserved for judgment on 20 February 2017. The available text of the judgment does not contain the final decision or the court's reasoning, as it is truncated. However, the court's observations summarize the prosecution case and procedural history, highlighting the serious nature of the allegations and the protracted legal battle over the applicability of the MCOC Act.
Issue of Consideration
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.545 OF 2016
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (04) 23
Criminal Appeal No.545 of 2016 along with Criminal Application Nos.1440 of 2016 and 71 of 2017
Ranjit More, Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
Avinash Gupta, J.P. Mishra, Shyam Dewani, Prashant Muggu, Akanksha Helaskar, Aakash Gupta, V.S. Uberoi, Sujender Yadav, Anil C. Singh, S.D. Patil, Indrayani Deshmukh, J.P. Yagnik, B.A. Desai, Abdul Wahab Khan, Sharif Shaikh, Wahab Khan, Ansar Tamboli, Naina Shaikh, Shahid Ansari, Afzal
Pragya Singh Chandrapalsingh Thakur alias Sadhvi alias Swami Purnchetanand Giri
State of Maharashtra, Through National Investigating Agency (NIA)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against order rejecting bail application.
Remedy Sought
Appellant (Accused No.1) sought bail.
Filing Reason
Her application for bail (Exhibit 3021) was rejected by Special Court on 28 June 2016.
Previous Decisions
Bail application rejected on 25 September 2012; Criminal Appeal No.1305 of 2013 dismissed by High Court on 4 April 2014; Supreme Court directed fresh consideration excluding MCOC Act; subsequent bail application rejected on 7 November 2015; no appeal against that rejection.
Judgment Excerpts
On 29th September 2008, at about 9:35 pm, the bomb explosion took place at Malegaon... 6 innocent persons lost their lives and about 101 persons had received injuries...
Appellant is the registered owner of the said vehicle.
In one of the meetings at Bhopal, on 11th/12th April 2008, the criminal conspiracy to cause bomb-blast at Malegaon was hatched...
The Hon'ble Apex Court... held that, the Appellant is also entitled for the same relief of consideration of her Bail Application on its own merits, excluding the provisions of MCOC Act.
Procedural History
29 September 2008: Bomb explosion at Malegaon. 18 October 2008: UAPA provisions invoked. 23 October 2008: Appellant arrested. 26 October 2008: ATS took over investigation. 29 November 2008: MCOC Act invoked. 20 September 2009: Charge-sheet filed. 20 April 2011: Supplementary charge-sheet filed. 1 April 2011: Investigation transferred to NIA. 13 April 2011: NIA re-registered offence. 31 July 2009: Special court initially discharged accused from MCOC Act; State appealed. 19 July 2010: High Court allowed State's appeal, restoring MCOC Act. 15 April 2015: Supreme Court excluded MCOC Act for appellant and directed fresh bail consideration. 21 September 2015: Appellant filed new bail application. 7 November 2015: Bail rejected, no appeal. 13 May 2016: NIA filed supplementary report. 28 June 2016: Special court rejected fresh bail application (Exhibit 3021), leading to this appeal.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code (IPC): 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 153A, 120B
- Explosive Substances Act, 1908: 3, 4, 5, 6
- Arms Act, 1959: 3, 5, 25
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23
- Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999: 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5), 11, 12
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 173(8)
