8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
1/479
1 conf.5.09
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONFIRMATION CASE NO.5 OF 2009
The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant(Ori. Complt.)
versus
1. Sayeed Mohd. Hanif Abdul Rahim,
2. Ashrat @ Arshad Shafiq Ahmed Ansari,3. Fehmida w/o Sayyed Mohd. Hanif .. Respondents
(Ori.Accused Nos.1 to 3)WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.880 OF 2009
Sayyed Mohd. Hanif Abdul Rahim,Oc.Rikshaw Driver, R/o.D/7, Salim Chawl,
Chimatpada, Marol Naka, Andheri (W),Mumbai-400 059. .. Appellant(Presently lodged at Nagpur Central Prison (Ori.Accused No.1)convicted prisoner in the present matter).
versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent(At the instance of DCB, CID, Mumbai)
WITHCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.857 OF 2009
Ashrat @ Arshad Shafiq Ahmad Ansari
Age 32 years, Plot No.515, Junnat Nagar,C.D.Barfiwala Marg, Andheri (W),
Mumbai 400 058.Presently in Judicial Custody .. AppellantMumbai Central Prison (Arthur Road Jail), (Ori.Accused No.2)Mumbai.
versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
(Through : DCB, CID Unit-VIII)
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
2/479
2 conf.5.09
WITHCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1128 OF 2009
Fehmida w/o Sayyed Mohd. Hanif,Age 43 years, Occ. Housewife,R/o.D-7, Salim Chawl, Chimatpada, .. AppellantMarol Naka, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059. (Ori.Accused No.3)(At present in Yerawada Central Prison).
versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent(At the instance of DCB , CID, Mumbai)
WITHCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4 OF 2009
The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant
versus
1. Mohd. Hasan Mohd. Anas Shaikh @
Hasan Bateriwala,
Near Nurul Islam Masjid, Sanjay Nagar,Hill No.3, Ghatopkar (W),Mumbai.
2. Mohd. Rizwan Mohd. Issaq Ansari @
Rizwan Ladoowala,Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Burma Shell Line,
Near Gulistan Madarasa, Kurla (E),Mumbai. .. Respondents
(Ori.Accused Nos.4 & 5)
WITHWRIT PETITION NO.2539 OF 2008
The State of Maharashtra Petitioner (Ori.Opponent)
versus
1. Mohd. Hasan Mohd. Anas Shaikh @Hasan Bateriwala ,
Near Nurul Islam Masjid, Sanjay Nagar,
Hill No.3, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai.
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
3/479
3 conf.5.09
2. Mohd. Rizwan Mohd. Issaq Ansari @Rizwan Ladoowala,Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Burma Shell Line,
Near Gulistan Madarasa, Kurla (E),Mumbai.Respondents
(Ori Accused Nos. 4 & 5)
APPEARANCES :
Ms.Poornima H. Kantharia, A.P.P. a/w Shri J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P. for State(Appellant in Conf.Case No.5/2009, Petitioner in W.P.No.2539/2008,Appellant in Cri.Appeal No.4/2009, and Respondent in Cri.Appeal
Nos.880/2009, 857/2009 and 1128/2009).
Shri Khan Abdul Wahab for ori.accused no.1 (Respondent no.1 in Conf.Case
No.5/2009 and Appellant in Cri.Appeal No.880 of 2009).
Shri Sushan Kunjuraman and Shri Mahesh Kadam for ori.accused no.2,Respondent no.2 in Conf.Case No.5/2009 & Appellant in Cri.Appeal
No.857/2009).
Shri Sudeep Pasbola a/w Ms.Maharukh Adenwalla i/by Rahul Arote for
ori.accused no.3 (Respondent no.3 in Conf.Case No.5/2009, Appellant inCri.Appeal No.1128/2009).
Shri Sharif Shaikh for ori.accused nos.4 and 5 (Respondent nos.1 & 2 inW.P.No.2539/2008 & Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.4/2009).
CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR ANDP.D.KODE, JJ.
DATEOF RESERVING: NOVEMBER 12, 2011.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING : FEBRUARY 10, 2012.
JUDGMENT ( PER : P.D.KODE, J. )
1. All the aforesaid proceedings arise out of either-
(a)Report/Direction dated 10th May 2005 given by Review
Committee constituted under section 60 of Prevention of
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
4/479
4 conf.5.09
Terrorism Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as "POTA") as
amended by Prevention of Terrorism (Repeal) Act, 2004
(hereinafter referred as "Repeal Act") or;
(b)Order dated 17th November, 2008 passed on Exh D-116
in POTA Special Case No.1 of 2004 during the midst of trial
after evidence of both the sides at trial was over or;
(c)Final judgment and order delivered on 6th
August, 2009in POTA Special Case No.1 of 2004 of the Special Court
under POTA Act for Greater Mumbai.
2. The said POTA Special Case No.1 of 2004 was registered on
the basis of charge sheet filed on 5th February 2004, by Chief
Investigating Officer (PW 103) ACP Suresh Walishetty at the
conclusion of investigation of four crimes for commission of offences
under section 120-B read with sections 302, 307, 326, 324 of IPC
under sections 3,4,5 of Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and under
sections 5 and 9 (b) of Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and under sections
3,4,5 and 20 of Prevention of Terrorist Act, 2002 against in all six
named accused in the charge sheet along with wanted accused Shafakat
Ali, Khalid Maqsood, Jehangir, Bilal, Samiullah and Rehman.
3. During the pendency of the case, pursuant to the prosecution
Application dated 5.5.2004 at Exh-P, under section 307 of Code of
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
5/479
5 conf.5.09
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code'), Jehangir
Patne (numbered as accused no.4 in the said charge sheet) was
accorded pardon and was subsequently examined as an Approver PW2
at the trial.
4. Accordingly, charge as described in detail in Exh-P5, was
framed at said trial on 23rd June 2004, for commission of various
offences under IPC, Explosives Substances Act, Indian Explosives Act,
Prevention of Terrorist Act, and Damage to Public Property Act, etc.
against remaining five accused named in the charge sheet. While
framing the said charge Mohd. Hasan Mohd. Anas Shaikh @ Hasan
Batterywala numbered as accused no.5 and Mohd. Rizwan Mohd.
Issaq Ansari @ Rizwan Ladduwala numbered as accused no.6 in the
charge sheet, were renumbered as accused nos.4 and 5 respectively
(who are hereinafter referred to as A4 and A5').
5. After evidence of both the parties was adduced at the trial,
Review Committee constituted under section 60 of POTA as amended
by Repeal Act, gave hearing to said accused A1 to A3, A4 and A5 and
their counsel as well as to the learned Public Prosecutor. After
examining the Police Report comprised of statements of witnesses,
seizure memos and other material, the said Committee on 10th May
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
6/479
6 conf.5.09
2005 opined that the said A4 and A5 were not found connected with
the incident of terrorism in the four bomb blast cases and therefore
there is no basis for their prosecution under POTA. However, A1 to
A3 and PW2 (numbered as accused no.4 in the charge sheet) were
prima facie connected with offences under POTA and therefore, there
appears no misuse of power in invoking POTA against them. The said
Committee therefore directed State of Maharashtra to proceed as per
Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 2 of Repeal Act qua the said
A4 and A5.
6. Thereafter, said A4 and A5 preferred MA No.42 and MA
No.44 of 2005 to invoke Section 60 (7) of POTA and to discharge
them from the said case. The same were rejected by the Special
Judge, POTA Court Mumbai vide order dated 11th August 2005. A4
preferred Criminal Appeal No.783 of 2005 while A5 preferred
Criminal Writ Petition No.2363 of 2005 before this Court challenging
the said order. Both the said proceedings were disposed of by this
Court by order dated 24th October 2005. This Court heldthat the said
A4 and A5 cannot be discharged directly merely on the basis of
opinion of the Review Committee. The Court directed the prosecution
to file an application for withdrawal of the case against A4 and A5
under section 321 of the Code.
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
7/479
7 conf.5.09
7. On 18th November, 2005 A4 and A5 filed application
Exh.D-54 before POTA Court to call upon Special PP to inform the
Court whether he intends to make an application as directed by this
Court vide order dated 24th October, 2005. In response to the said
application, on 24thNovember,2005, Special Public Prosecutor filed
application P-319 for recalling PW8 for further examination-in-chief
on account of new material being introduced during his cross-
examination. In the said application P-319, it was contended that the
same had become necessary in view of direction given by this Court to
take out an application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. It was further
contended that the same was necessary as Special PP had to formulate
his opinion about existence or non-existence of prima facie case under
POTA against A4 and A5 for making an appropriate application as
directed by this Court.
8. By the common order, passed on 29th November, 2005, on
application Exh.P-319 and Exh.D-54, the POTA Court kept the
prayer for recall of PW8 for consideration after prosecution examines
all the witnesses excepting the investigation officer, as ordered earlier
by the said Court upon the earlier application. On 5th December,
2005 Special Public Prosecutor for the matters stated in the application
submitted that it was not desirable at all to apply for withdrawal from
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
8/479
8 conf.5.09
prosecution under POTA against A4 and A5. Ultimately on 3rd
January, 2006 the learned Special PP preferred application Exh.P-343
under Section 321 of the Code stating that for the matters stated
therein, after giving due weightage to the observations and
recommendations of the Central POTA Review Committee, he is of
opinion that there is prima facie case under POTA against A4 and A5.
9. During the hearing of Exh.P-343 and Exh.D-54 and while
passing common order thereon, on 17th January,2006, the POTA
Court was required to adjourn the matter in view of the Advocate for
A4 and A5 had sought time and the POTA Court continued hearing
and passing of the order on 23rd January, 2006. By the order
completed on the said date, POTA Court, for the reasons stated therein,
disposed of the said application. The POTA Court held that, no case
for withdrawal under Section 321 of the Code was made out.
10. A5 preferred S.L.P. No. 187 of 2006 before the Apex Court
against the order of this Court dated 24th October, 2005 contending
thatin the light of report of Review Committee, he ought to have been
discharged without following the procedure as laid down under section
321 of the Code. After grant of leave, the said S.L.P. was numbered as
Criminal Appeal No. 359 of 2006. The same was clubbed along with
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
9/479
9 conf.5.09
the other matters of accused persons from Godhara Fire incident. It
was later on disposed of by the Apex Court vide order dated 21st
October 2008 with following observations in paragraph 51.
"We therefore hold that once the Review Committee onreview under section 2(3) of the Repealing Act, expresses the
opinion that there is no prima facie case for proceedingagainst the accused, in cases in which cognizance has been
taken by the Court, such cases shall be deemed to have been
withdrawn. The only role of the Public Prosecutor in the
matter is to bring to the notice of the Court, the direction ofthe Review Committee. The Court on satisfying itself as towhether such an opinion was rendered, will have to record
that the case stands withdrawn by virtue of section 2(3) of the
Repealing Act. The Court will not examine the correctness orpropriety of the opinion nor exercise any supervisory
jurisdiction in regard to such a opinion of the ReviewCommittee. But we make it clear that if the opinion of the
Review Committee is challenged by any aggrieved party in
writ proceedings and is set aside, the Court where theproceedings were pending, will continue with the case as if
there had been no such opinion."
11. Relying upon the said observation, A4 and A5 preferred
Application Exh.D-116, for exonerating them from the charges
framed against them on the basis of report given on 10th May 2005 by
Review Committee of POTA. That application was allowed. It is held
that prosecution against said A4 and A5 is deemed to have been
withdrawn as per clause (a) of sub-section 3 of section 2 of Prevention
of Terrorism (Repeal) Act, 2004. Thus, the said A4 and A5 were
ordered to be released if otherwise not required to be detained in
connection with some other case, with further rider that the case
against the said accused would be revived in the event of this court
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
10/479
10 conf.5.09
setting aside the said opinion given by Review committee on POTA in
a writ proceeding preferred by aggrieved party.
12. The prosecution on 2nd December 2008 preferred above
referred Writ Petition No.2539 of 2008 for quashing and setting aside
the direction given by the POTA Review Committee on 10th May
2005. Similarly, on 22nd December 2008 the prosecution preferred
above referred Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2009 under section 378(1) of
the Code against the order dated 17th November 2008 discharging A4
and A5.
13. In view of the deemed withdrawal of prosecution against A4
and A5 and their consequent release from the case, POTA Special Case
No.1 of 2004, thereafter, proceeded against the remaining accused i.e.
accused no.1 Syed Mohammed Hanif Abdul Rahim, accused no.2. Ashrat @
Arshad Shafiq Ahmed Ansari and accused no.3 Fehmida wife of accused no.1
Syed Mohammed Hanif. At the conclusion of the said trial, the learned trial
Judge held that out of the charges framed against said A1 to A3, each of them
was guilty for commission of offences as described in the table given
hereinbelow and sentenced each of them for respective offence for which they
were found guilty, as stated in the third column against the respective offence
mentioned in second column of the said table :
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
11/479
11 conf.5.09
Sr.No.
Or thecount of
charge
Found guilty and
convicted for theoffence of
Sentence awarded for the same
1. 120B of IPC Death & fine Rs.5000/- I.d.R.I.for 2yrs each.
2. 120B r/w 302 IPC Death & fine Rs.5000/- I.D.R.I.For 2yrs each
3. 120B r/w & 307 IPC Life and fine Rs.5000/- I.d. R.I.For 5
yrs4. 120B r/w sec .427
IPCR.I.for 2 yrs
5. 120B r/w sec,.3 (2)(a)of POTA Act
R.I. For 2 yrs
6. Sec.3 (3) of POTAAct
Imprisonment for life fine Rs.5000/-I.d.R.I. for 2 yrs
7. Offence punishable
u/s 4(b) of POTA Act
Imprisonment for life.
8. Sec.5 r.w. 9(B) ofExplosives Act 1884.
R.I. for two years
9. Sec.3 of ExplosivesSubstances Act,1908
Imprisonment for life
10. Sec.4 of ExplosiveSubstances Act.
R.I. For 20 yrs
11. Section 3 of
Prevention ofDamage to PublicProperty Act, 1984
R.I. For 5 yrs fine Rs.1000/-I.d.
R.I.for 6 months
12. Sec.4 of Prevention ofdamage to publicProperty Act, 1984
7 yrs fine Rs.2000/- I.d. R.I. 6months.
However, by the same judgment and order, the learned trial
Judge also came to the conclusion that the said accused were not guilty
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
12/479
12 conf.5.09
for the remaining offences for which they were charged and acquitted
them from the said charges framed against them.
14. The reference made by the learned trial Judge for
confirmation of death sentence given to each of the aforesaid accused
has given rise to above stated confirmation case No.5 of 2009.
15. Accused no.1 has challenged the judgment and order
convicting and sentencing him by preferring Criminal Appeal No.880
of 2009. While Accused no.2 has challenged the judgment and order
convicting and sentencing him by preferring Criminal Appeal No.857
of 2009. While Accused no.3 has challenged the judgment and order
convicting and sentencing her by preferring above stated Criminal
Appeal No.1128 of 2009.
16. The said charge sheet giving rise to registration of said
POTA Special Case no. 5 of 2004 was submitted by Chief
Investigating officer ACP Shri.Walishetty (PW 103) at the end of
investigation of four different crimes registered with four different
police stations regarding an attempt to commit explosion and three
explosions committed by using the bombs within the area under
concerned police station. For the sake and convenience necessary
details regarding the same can be tabulated as under :-
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
13/479
13 conf.5.09
Sr.No.
Attempt orExplosionat
Bombplantedin
Date &Timeofincident
CrimeNo.regd withpolice Stn.upon FIR of
For Offencesunder
Effect ofincident/explosion
1. Seepz busDepotMIDC(Attempt)
BESTBusno.MH01- 8765 ofRouteNo.336
2ndDec,2002at 21.40hrs
C.R.No.400/2002 ofMIDC policestationAPI TanajiJadhav PW-63
Indian PenalCode,ExplosivesSubstancesAct,IndianExplosives Act.
Nil as bombwas defusedbeforeexplosion
2. Karanilane, LBS
junctionGhatkopar
BESTBus
No.MH-01-H-8246Route no.340
28thJuly,2003 .
21.10 hrs
C.R.No.235/03
Ghatkoparpolice Stn.BusconductorDilipWankhedePW 54
..do..and alsoPrevention of
Damage to PublicProperty Act.
2 personskilled, 60
passengerswere injured2 autorickshaw and 2motor cyclesand severalshopsdamaged of
public andprivate
property ofvalue to the
tune of Rs.16.30 lacs
3. ZaveriBazar nearMumbadevi
temple
MotortaxiNo.MH-0
2-R-2022
25th
August,2003 at
12.40 hrs
C.R.No.201/03of L.T. Marg
Police Stn.another taxi
driver Shri.LalsahebSingh PW-27
Penal Code &Indian ExplosivesAct.
36personskilled,138 were
injured,property worth
of 95 lacsincluding 41vehicles shops,and residentialhouses were
damaged.
4. Gatewayof India,
Opp.Taj
MahalHotel
MotorTaxi
MH-02-
R-2007
25th
August,
2003 at
13.05hrs
C.R.No.206/03 of
Colaba
policestation P.C.
Camilo ReisPW 14.
Penal Code,Explosives
Substances Act,
Explosives Act,Prevention of
Damage toPublic Property
Act and POTA
Act.
16 personskilled,
46 injured,
20 carsdamaged,
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
14/479
14 conf.5.09
17. In all 54 persons were killed and 244 persons were injured
and the property worth Rs. 1,60,00,000/- was damaged in said three
incidents of explosion caused by means of bombs. Investigation in the
above four C.Rs. registered at concerned police stations were initially
carried out at the said Police Stations. However, no clues regarding
culprits involved in crime registered with MIDC as well as Ghatkopar
Police Station was forthcoming even until occurrence of incident of
explosion at Zaveri Bazar and at Gateway of India and or until the A2
was arrested during the investigation of crime registered with
Ghatkopar Police Station on 31st of August, 2003. For the sake of
convenience the details pertaining to the initial investigation are
narrated while considering the prosecution evidence regarding
respective incidents. The investigation of the said four crimes
registered at the said police stations was afterwards taken over by the
Crime Branch by registering crime number of DCB CID as shown in
the table given below :
Sr.No.
Original CR Number registered with PoliceStation
DCB CID CR Nos.
1 C.R. No.400/02 of MIDC Police station CR 157 of 2003
2 C.R.No.235 of 2003 of Ghatkopar PoliceStation
CR No.75 of 2003
3 C.R.No.201 of 2003 of L.T.Marg PoliceStation
CR No.91 of 2003
4 C.R.No.206 of 2003 of Colaba Police Station CR No.86 of 2003
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
15/479
15 conf.5.09
ARREST OF ACCUSED
NOS.1, 2 & 3 :-
18. Upon receipt of secret information Police Officers of DCB
CID of Unit-XI regarding the suspicious behaviour of Accused No.2
Ashrat (hereinafter referred to as `A2'), A2 was apprehended by the
team of Police Officers consisting PI Savde, PSI Talekar (PW-98),
PSI Kandalgaonkar (PW-99), PSI Vankoti (PW-97), PSI Toradmal
(PW-51) and the staff members on 31.8.2003 at about 15:30 hrs. A2
was thereafter extensively interrogated by said Police Officers and
during interrogation clue was received regarding his involvement in
planting of bomb in Ghatkopar BEST Bus. A2 was then formally
arrested at about 20:20 hrs. by PSI Todarmal (PW 51). Under arrest
cum seizure memo (Exh. P-385) prepared in presence of panchas
Mukund Ingrulkar (PW-50) and Shri Vijay Kadam, the articles found
during the personal search of A2 were seized.
19. The said articles seized during the search were i)motor
driving licence in name of A2 Ashrat Ansari Shafiq Ahmed Ansari.
ii)identity card issued by Janata Party in the name of A2 as member
of said party. iii)Four paper cuttings of Urdu News paper. iv)A white
paper chit bearing some matter in Urdu language on one side andthe
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
16/479
16 conf.5.09
telephone No. 6391553 on other side. v)a white paper chit bearing
the name of Jahid Yusuf Patni (APPROVER PW-2) with his e-mail
address [email protected]. vi)A visiting card of Noor
Electricals owned by S. M. Hanif (Accused No.1) and A.B. Shaikh
with the Mobile No. 9892077831-9892451164 of Nasir and Land-
line No. 28527761 of Hanif mentioned on the overleaf of the above
visiting cards. vii)Seven passport size photographs, cash amount of
Rs. 2,200 and other miscellaneous articles.
20. A.2, thereafter, during the interrogation effected in the
Office of Unit No.XI situated at Kandivali, gave clue that A2 along
with his associates i.e. deceased accused Nasir, A1 and A3-wife of A1
had prepared bombs and placed the same in BEST bus of Route No.
336 on 2.12.2002 at Seepz and in a BEST bus of Route No.340 at
Ghatkopar on 28.7.2003. He also made a statement revealing his
willingness to show the place where the remaining material out of
material used for preparing Bomb was kept by him. The same was
recorded as (Exh. P-393). A2 thereafter led Police Officers and
panchas towards his house on first floor of the hutment in Juned Nagar,
Juhu Galli, Andheri (West), Mumbai, entered in the room and
produced a tin box kept below the cot which contained 30 gelatin
sticks, 3 alarm clocks, and 8 detonators. The same were seized by PSI
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
17/479
17 conf.5.09
Vankoti (PW-97) in presence of panchas Sunil Bhatia (PW-53) and
Sameer Sayar vide panchnama (Exh.P-393-A).
21. After returning to the office of DCB CID Unit-XI along with
said panchas and police A2 again informed the Police Officers that he
would show them the place where the bombs were prepared by him
and his associates. A2 thereafter led police officers and panchas
towards the house of A1 Hanif and A3 Fehmida situate at Salim
Chawl, Room No. D-7, Chimat Pada, Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai.
A1 & A3 were in the said house along with their two daughters
Farheen and Sakira. A2 Ashrat led Police Officers and panchas
towards loft of the room where bombs were prepared by him and his
associates. Police Officers thereafter took search of house of A1 and
from the cupboard seized about ten documents/articles.
22. The same were i) passport of A1 bearing No. Q-548661,
dated 15.10.80 issued by Mumbai Passport Office. ii) Passport in the
name of A1 bearing No. P-468148, dated 11.9.93 issued by Jeddah
Passport Office. iii)Passport in the name of A3 bearing No.A-3581902,
dated 6.8.97 issued by Mumbai Passport Office. iv) Passport in the
name of Farheen Mohd. Hanif Sayyed (daughter of A-1 & A-3)
bearing No. A-3525401, dated 6.8.97 issued by Mumbai Passport
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
18/479
18 conf.5.09
Office. v) Passport in the name of Irfan Hanif Mohd. Sayyed (son of
A-1 and A-3) bearing No. A-3527645, dated 8.8.97 issued by Mumbai
Passport Office. vi) Photo identity card of a person resident of Philton,
Dubai, Jumeria.vii) Visiting card of Arun Vaswani mentioning the
phone numbers of Chetan, Ashwin, Masjid, Ashrat Shafiq Ansari,
Shiraj Electricals on the overleaf of the card. viii) Visiting card of Aziz
in the name of Mumbai Motors and the name of Nasir and his Mobile
No. 9892451164 mentioned on its overleaf. ix) Visiting card of Noor
Electrical owned by S.M. Hanif and the name of Nasir with his Mobile
No. 9892077831 mentioned overleaf. x) Wallet containing cash of
Rs.127 and driver badge of Cab bearing No. 62652.
23. A2 thereafter pointed a water tank adjacent to North-East
wall of the home of A1 and one gunny bag containing some material
kept near the water tank. On opening the said gunny bag, it was found
containing i) 125 aluminum clips kept in one cloth bag of Khaki
colour. ii) soldering machine along with plug and wire. iii) 9 alarm
clocks in various sizes of Fengseng Co. iv) one clipper of Super Eagle
Co. (12 m.m.) v) One polyester Filament Yarn role of white colour. vi)
One solder wire role. vii) One Polyester Yarn fitting machine (Super
eagle make.). Viii) 16 crackers of red colour.
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
19/479
19 conf.5.09
24. One cardboard box was also found kept on the mezzanine
floor. On opening the same, it was found containing 117 gelatine
sticks with Nobel Gel-80 necl Hingani Vardha mentioned on each
stick. So also one corrugated box wrapped in cloth was found kept
on the water tank and on opening was found containing 12
electronic detonators. All said articles were seized by Police in
presence of panchas vide panchnama (Exh. P-394-A) which was
concluded at about 2.35 hrs. on 1.9.2002. A1, his wife A3 and their
daughter Farheen were arrested in connection with BEST Bus Bomb
Explosion Case of Ghatkopar registered vide C.R. No.75 of 2003 under
custody memo. The arrested accused persons along with the seized
articles were taken to the office of DCB CID, Unit XI at Kandivali.
25. After taking some rest after reaching Office of Unit No.XI,
A1 led Police Officers to the place where the gelatin sticks were
hidden by him. He had taken police officers and panchas towards
Chimat Pada, in a lane near Maheshwari Hotel and pointed out Room
No. 14 in Salim Chawl which was found locked. A1 Hanif opened the
lock with the key in his possession and entered the room. He was
followed by police officers andpanchas. A1 took out yellow coloured
gunny bag which was kept below the cot and 58 gelatin sticks were
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
20/479
20 conf.5.09
found in the bag and the said sticks came to be seized vide panchnama
(Exh.P-395A)
26. After arrest of A 1 to 3 they were produced before Special
Court on 1-9-2003. At that time A 1 made complaint of ill-health and
he was thereafter taken to Bhabha Hospital at Bandra for medical
treatment and after getting discharged from the hospital he was
produced before the Special Court on 2-9-2003. He was later on
remanded to Police custody till 15-9-2003. On 1-9-2003 A2 and A3
were already remanded to the police custody by special court. Since it
was revealed from the school record of Accused Farheen (daughter of
A-1 and A-3) that she was minor at the time of commission of offence,
she was produced before the Juvenile Court at Dongri, Mumbai.
27. Accused No.2, during his interrogation by ACP Shri
Walishetty (PW-103) Investigating into the offence of Ghatkopar
BEST bus bomb blast, disclosed that he himself, A1, wife of A1 i.e.
A3 and their daughter Farheen were involved in the offence of bomb
blasts. A2 on 4-9-2003 expressed his willingness to give confession.
The same was apprised by IO Shri Walishetty to Joint C. P. (Crime)
who directed DCP Shri Vinod Lokhande (PW-88) of Zone-X to record
the confession of Accused No. 2 Ashrat.
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
21/479
21 conf.5.09
28. On 11-9-2003, PW-103 produced A2 before PW-88 DCP
Zone-X. He complied with the formalities of recording confession
amongst other explaining A2 that he was not bound to make confession
and if A2 makes the same it could be used against him. A2 was given
24 hours time for reconsideration of his decision to make the
confession and in the meantime A2 was lodged in the lock-up of
Bandra-Kurla Complex Police Station. A2 was produced on the next
day i. e. on 12-9-2003 before PW-88 and he was again apprised by
PW-88 that he was not bound to make the confession and if he makes
the confession, the same would be used as evidence against him. Upon
such appraisal, A2 stated that the time given to him for reconsideration
was sufficient and he reiterated his desire to make the confession.
Confession of A2 was thereafter recorded by PW 88 Exh.501A. A 2
was then produced before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the same
day i. e. on 12-9-2003 and his separate statement confirming that his
confession was recorded by C. M. M. A 2 in the said confession gave
all necessary details pertaining to the role played by him and his
associates in the bomb blasts at Ghatkopar, Mumbadevi and Gateway
of India.
29. Prior to occurrence of bomb explosion near Mumbadevi
Temple at about 12.40 hours A2 had communicated to deceased
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
22/479
22 conf.5.09
Accused Nasir on his Mobile 9892451164 through STD booth of
PW-28 Dilip Yagnik on telephone No. 65389009 that he had kept the
goods in the taxi near Mumbadevi Temple and work will be done.
Exh. P-284 is the print out of the above call.
30. Accused Nasir had purchased SIM card of Airtel bearing No.
9892451164 from a shop i. e. Raj Electronics at Marol. Delivery
challan as well as enrollment form to such effect i.e. Exh. P-276 and
Exh. P-278 respectively were collected by IO. Accused Nasir had also
purchased another SIM card of Airtel bearing No. 9892077831 from
Karishma Electronics at Marol. Exh. P-275 is challan of the said
purchase. PW-5 Ashok is the proprietor of Karishma Electronics and
PW-4 Anil is the owner of the Raj Electronics. Their statements were
recorded by IO.
ENCOUNTER INCIDENT 12th September,2003
31. Police Officers in search of wanted accused Nasir received
the information that the said accused along with his associates was
likely to come near Ruparel College in a Maruti-800 car with Arms,
Ammunitions, and Explosives on 12th March 2003. PSI Sachin
Kadam (PW-1), API Ahir, PSI Sabnis along with other staff went to
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
23/479
23 conf.5.09
the said place at Matunga (West) on the said day and laid a trap. As
accused Nasir driving a Blue coloured Maruti-800 came at the said
spot, the Police Officers asked him to stop the same. However, he paid
no heed to the same and persons in the car started firing from the
revolvers towards the Police. PW-1 Sachin Kadam was compelled to
open firing in retaliation upon Nasir and his associates due to which
Nasir and his associates Hasan Habib sustained injuries. Both of them
were taken to KEM Hospital in mobile van but they were declared
brought dead by the doctors. 92 Gelatin Sticks, 8 Detonators, 2
Alarm Clocks and wire cutter were found in the said Maruti-800 car
bearing No.BLM-6184.
32. LAC Case No.487 of 2003 for the said contraband material
found in the said van and seized and a separate Crime No.225 of 2003
regarding said encounter incident was registered at Shivaji Park Police
Station. The said Maruti car along with explosives therein was seized
by the said Police Station at the time of preparing inquest panchanama
Exhibit-P-254. Two revolvers, mobile phone, two SIM cards, two
credit cards, two driving licences, election cards and some chits were
found on the dead body of Nasir and the same were seized.
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
24/479
24 conf.5.09
Recording of Confessions of A1 &A3
33. A1 and his wife A3 while in Police custody on 16th
September 2003 expressed willingness to give the confession. Joint
Commissioner of Police (Crime) directed DCP Shri Lokhande
(PW-88) to record confession of A1 and DCP Ms. Archana Tyagi
(PW-90) was directed to record confession of A3.
34. On 22nd September 2003, PW-88 complied with the
formalities for recording confession of A1 and on the same day
recorded first part of his confession (Exhibit-P-501). Similarly, after
following necessary procedure on 24th September 2003, PW 88
recorded the confession of said accused. Thereafter, on 25th
September 2003, A1 was produced before the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate and his statement (Exhibit-P-623) was recorded by the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Thereafter, confession of A1 was
forwarded to POTA Court on 26th September 2003 vide covering
letter Exhibit-506-B.
35. On 22nd September 2003, PW-90 complied with the
formalities for recording confession of A3. She recorded first part of
her (A3) confession (Exhibit-P-522). PW-90 again took further
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
25/479
25 conf.5.09
proceedings on 24th September 2003 for recording confession of A3
produced before her and recorded second part of her confession
(Exhibit-522-A). A3 was thereafter produced before CMM on 25th
September 2003 and her statement regarding the confession was
recorded by the CMM and along with the same her confession was
forwarded to the POTA Court.
36. During the investigation, it was noticed that the arrested
accused persons and their associates were involved in the commission
of the above four offences. Considering the magnitude of the offences
and nature of the criminal conspiracy hatched Joint Commissioner of
Police (Crime) Shri Satyapal Singh appointed ACP Shri Suresh S.
Walishetty (PW-103) as Chief Investigating Officer to do the
investigation in connection with all the four offences of bomb blasts
and the officers of the concerned Police Stations were directed to
assist Shri Walishetty in the investigation. A1 to A3 were lodged in
Mumbai Central Prison.
37. SEO Shri Waman Sapre (PW-52) on 1st October 2003 at
Mumbai Central Prison conducted the test identification parade of A1
to A3. PW-6 Anil Mulchand Vishwakarma, a carpenter by profession
was witness in resepct of Ghatkopar incident. He identified A2 and
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
26/479
26 conf.5.09
A3 being the persons with whom he had quarrel while getting down
from the BEST bus route no.340 at Marole Pipeline Stop while he
was returning to Ghatkopar from Andheri. Exhibit-P-389 is the
memorandum of the said parade prepared by SEO PW-52.
38. PW-52 held another identification parade at Mumbai
Central Prison on 11th October 2003 for A1 and A2 in connection
with Ghatkopar incident. Mr.Dilip Wankhede (Conductor of the bus)
(PW-54) identifiedA2 at the said parade as being the person who had
boarded the BEST busroute no.340 at Andheri bus stop along with
one Burkha Clad Lady with her face uncovered to whom he had
issued ticket for Asalpha bus stop and the person who had taken the
seat along with the said lady at the rear side of the bus. Further
identification parade for A3 on the same day was held at Byculla
District Prison (where she was shifted) by the same witness. At the
said parade PW-54 identified A3 as being the Burkha Clad woman
with face uncovered who had boarded the BEST bus of route no.340 at
Andheri stop along with the person who had taken BEST bus ticket for
Asalpha stop. Exhibit-P-391 is memorandum prepared of the said
parade held at Arthur Road and Byculla Prison.
39. The Special Metropolitan Magistrate Shri Madhukar Bodake
(PW-18) on 6th February 2003 conducted the identification parade
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
27/479
27 conf.5.09
for A1 and A2 at Mumbai Central Prison in connection with CR No.
206 of 2003 of Colaba Police Station (Gate Way of India incident).
The witnesses Nafiz Ahamed Khan (PW-19), Shivnarayan Pande
(PW-15) and Ramchandra Shitalprasad Gupta (PW-20) participated in
the said parade. On 25th July 2003 A1 had been to the house of A2
and the rickshaw was wrongly parked by A1 in front of the shop of
PW-19 and on that count there was a quarrel between A1 and the said
PW-19. PW-19, the owner of a garment factory at Juhu Lane,
Samata Nagar, Andheri (W), Mumbai near the residence of A2 and had
seen A1 many times coming to the house of A2, identified A2 in the
said parade as being the person residing adjacent to his shop since
long and was friend of A1.
40. PW-15 Shivnarayan Vasudev Pandey was the owner of the
taxi bearing No. MH-01-R 2007 and was driving his taxi in Mumbai
since the year 1982. Encountered accused Nasir on 24th August 2003
had engaged the said taxi when parked opposite Amber Oscar Cinema
Hall at Andheri. He had engaged the said taxi for Rs.600/- for going to
the places such as Haji Ali, Hanging Garden, Aquarium, Gateway of
India and Rani Baug and the said taxi was brought by PW 15 with the
said accused at Azad Galli, Andheri (W0. Thereafter, Nasir A-1, wife
Fehmida and their two daughters had travelled in the said taxi from
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
28/479
28 conf.5.09
Azad Galli to Colaba for visiting places and returned and A1, his wife
Fehmida and their two daughters travelled in the said taxi of PW-15
Shivnarayan Pandey again on 25-8-2003 from Azad Galli, Andheri
(West) to Colaba. A1 had kept one airbag in the dickey of the taxi and
asked the taxi driver to take the taxi towards Arthur Bunder Road at
Colaba and to park the said taxi in front of Hotel Taj in pay & park
site. The same accused had instructed the witness to stay in the taxi till
the arrival of A1 and his family members. PW-15 Shivnarayan
identified A1 in the above parade saying that he was the same person
who put his airbag in the dickey of the taxi and asked him to take the
taxi towards Arthur Bunder Road at Colaba and park the same in front
of Hotel Taj in pay & park site and should not leave the taxi till his
arrival.
41. PW-20 Ramchandra Shitalprasad Gupta has also identified
A1. He claimed to have seen A1 along with his wife and two
daughters travelled in his friends ( Shivnarayan Pandey) taxi. PW 20
however did not identify A2 in the above parade. Exh.-P-323 is the
memorandum of the above TIP which was held on 6-10-2003 in
Mumbai Central Prison.
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
29/479
29 conf.5.09
42. The Special Metropolitan Magistrate Madhukar Bodake
(PW-18), on 6th October 2003, held identification parade at Byculla
District Prison, regarding A3. The same witness i.e. PW-15
Shivnarayan Pande, identified A3, as the woman travelling along with
her husband and two daughters in his taxi on 25th August 2003. He has
mentioned about parking of that taxi at Gate Way of India in Pay and
Park site in front of Taj Hotel. Ramchandra Gupta (PW-20) and Nafis
Khan (PW-19) also identified A3 in the said parade. Exhibit-324 is
the memorandum panchanama of said parade.
43. Special Executive Officer Shri Sudhir Surve (PW-59) on
8.10.2003 in connection with C.R. No.157 of 2002 held identification
parade of A1 & A2 at Mumbai Central Prison for witness Manoj Patil
(PW-60). PW-60 identified A1 as a person who was in the queue ahead
of him for boarding BEST busRoute No. 312 at about 5.30 p.m. on
2-12-2002 at Seepz Bus depot and as the person who had handed over
a cloth bag to A2 who had later on occupied a seat on the rear side of
the said bus and thereafter A1 having left the stop.
44. Shri Dilip Masram (PW-62), conductor of the same bus
Route No. 312, also identified A2 as a person who had a quarrel with
another passenger at Seepz Bus depot and he pacified the person who
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
30/479
30 conf.5.09
along with a cloth bag had taken the seat on the rear side of the bus.
PW-62 however did not identify A1 at the said TI parade. The
memorandum of the said TIP prepared by PW-59 is Exh.P-415.
45. Special Executive Officer Shri Dushant M. Ozha on
9.10.2003 at Mumbai Central Prison had conducted identification
parade of A1 and A2 for five identifying witness. At the said parade,
PW-28 Dilip Yagnik working at STD/PCO Booth of Kantilal Jain
situated at 5, Vitthal Wadi, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- 400 002 identified
A2 as a person, who, on 25-8-2003, at about 12.10 hrs., made
telephone call from his PCO to one Nasir saying that he had kept the
goods in the taxi near Mumbadevi temple and work would be done.
Similarly, witness Harish (PW-30), who was present near
Mumbadevi Temple area on 25-8-2003 for hiring taxi for returning to
his home at C.P. Tank claimed to have seen taxi No. MH-01 H-2022
halted at Zaveri Bazar. He claims that he tried to board the said taxi
but he was told that taxi was not empty and directed him to go ahead
and shortly thereafter there was an explosion in the same taxi. PW-30
had identified A2 as being the same person who had shouted at him
and asked him to go away. Kunjbihari Ramprasad Pandey (PW-29)
and Kutty Manappa Shetty (PW-33) hawkers doing business at Dhanji
Street Naka has identified A2 at the said parade as a person who had a
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
31/479
31 conf.5.09
quarrel with one Nasir in the area of Dhanji Street Naka at about 6.00
p.m. on 24-8-2003 and they had a quarrel with one motor-cyclist and
the quarrel was separated by the above hawkers. The Memorandum of
the said TI parade prepared by PW-41 being Exh. P-192.
ABOUTAPPROVER
46. The charge sheeted Accused No. 4 Jahid Patne soon after the
three bomb blasts had watched news item on television in Dubai. He
became restless and was unable to sleep after knowing that several
persons lost their lives and many persons were injured in the said
blasts. He started repenting for his misdeeds. He then went to local
Masjid and apprised Maulana by name Jafar Sahab that he was
repenting for his act of having participated in the conspiracy of causing
bomb blasts in India. He was told by Maulana that due to his illegal
act, the persons including woman and children of both religions (Hindu
and Muslim) were killed and it was against the Muslim religion. He
thereafter decided to return to India to surrender before police and
accordingly returned to India on 1-10-2003. He was appraised by his
family members that police from Bandra Crime Branch had been to his
house for making inquiries. Hence, he along with his elder brother
went to the office of Bandra Crime Branch. Chief IO PW-103 made
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
32/479
32 conf.5.09
inquiry with said accused No.4 Jahid and received credible information
that Jahid was one of the conspirators of the offences of bomb blasts.
PW-103 arrested him on 2-10-2003 in DCB, CID C.R. No. 75/2003
and produced before the Special Court. He was remanded to police
custody till 17-10-2003, which was later on extended upto
30-10-2003.
47. During the course of interrogation Accused No. 4 Jahid
expressed his willingness on 16-10-2003 to give his confession. On
21-10-2003 he was produced before Shri Dhananjay Kamlakar
(PW-12) DCP of Zone-VII. He took proceeding for recording the
confession, Part-I (Exh.P-264). PW-12 took further proceedings on
the next day when accused No.4 was produced i.e. on 23-10-2003.
After following the due procedure, confession of A4 was recorded -
Part-II (Exh. P-264A). Accused No.4 on the same day was produced
before C.M.M. and his statement was recorded by C.M.M. confirming
the contents of his confession. The CMM then forwarded the
confession of accused No.4 to Special Court. Accused No. 4 Jahid was
remanded to judicial custody on 30-10-2003.
48. The Officers of DCB, CID, Unit-VII received reliable
information about the involvement of charge sheeted Accused No.5
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
33/479
33 conf.5.09
Batterywala and Accused No. 6 Ladduwala (present A4 & A5 at trial)
in the explosion of bomb blasts at Gateway of India and Zaveri
Bazaar. Both these accused were arrested in Ghatkopar area by the
Police Officers of Unit No. VIIon5-11-2003 and they were produced
before the Special Court on the same day. Special Court remanded
both the Accused persons to police custody till 19-11-2003 which was
further extended till 1-12-2003.
49. During interrogation on 10-11-2003, A-5 Hasan Batterywala
made a statement showing willingness to show the place where the
explosives were kept by him. The Memorandum (Exh.-297) regarding
said information was drawn. The said Accused No. 5 led IO and
panchas towards his Battery shop at Kolhapur Garage, L.B.S. Road,
Kurla (W), Mumbai and from said shop he produced 3 gelatin sticks
and RDX powder weighing 750 gms. kept in one cardboard box. The
said articles came to be seized in presence of panchas vide
panchanama (Exh. P-297A)
50. On 13-11-2003 Accused No. 6 Ladduwala, informed the IO
that he would show the place where the explosive material was kept by
him which was used while exploding bombs in Zaveri Bazar and at
Gateway of India. In consequence of above information, 2 detonators
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
34/479
34 conf.5.09
came to be seized by IO from a hut situated at Gulshan Nagar slum
area near Shahad Railway Station, Shahad (E), District Thane vide
panchanama (Exh. P-291A).
51. Charge sheeted accused No. 5 Batterywala and accused No.
6 Ladduwala on 14-11-2003 expressed willingness to give their
confession and the same was apprised by Chief IO (PW-103) to Joint
C.P. (Crime) who in turn respectively directed DCP Shri Amitabh
Gupta (PW-89) and DCP Shri Ankush Shinde (PW-91) to record the
confession of respective accused persons. Accordingly DCP PW-89
recorded Part-I (Exh. P-516) the confessional statement of charge
sheeted Accused No. 5 Batterywala on 25-11-2003 and part-II of the
confession (Exh. 516A) on 27-11-2003 by following the due
procedure. On the same day, Accused No. 5 Batterywala was produced
before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Similarly DCP PW-91
recorded Part-I of the confessional statement (Exh. P-532) of Accused
No. 6 Ladduwala on 25-11-2003 and part-II of the confession (Exh.
P-532A) was recorded on 27-11-2003. On the same day Accused No. 6
Ladduwala was produced before C.M.M. Both the accused persons
narrated the whole story before DCP involving themselves and other
co-accused persons in the commission of offence of bomb blasts.
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
35/479
35 conf.5.09
52. The investigation of all the four offences transpired that A1
belonged to terrorist organization i.e. Lashkar-E-Toyaba. He had
committed terrorist activities in Mumbai. He came to India from
Dubai and with the help ofhis wife A3, deceased terrorist Nasir
Ahmed Ansari, A2, original A5 and A6 committed terrorist acts in
Mumbai city by exploding the bombs. In pursuance of the criminal
conspiracy hatched by A1 to A6 and wanted accused persons,
i) A2 planted timer bomb in BEST bus bearing No. MH-01-
H-8765 at Seepz on 2-12-2002 and
ii) A2 with the help of A3 planted bomb in BEST bus of Route
No. 340 on 28-7-2003.
iii) A2 on 25-8-2003 also planted bomb in motor taxi bearing
No. MH-02-R-2022 near Mumbadevi and
iv) A1 with the assistance of his wife A3 planted bomb in motor
taxi bearing No. MH-02-R- 2007 which was exploded at
Gateway of India at about 13.10 hrs. on 25-8-2003.
As a result of said three bomb explosions 54 persons
were killed and 244 persons sustained injuries and property
worth Rs. 1,60,00,000 was damaged.
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
36/479
36 conf.5.09
Sanction for prosecution underPOTA
53. After receiving reports of Forensic Science Laboratory and
reports of Joint Controller of Explosives regarding the examination of
seized material; and after getting postmortem reports/Provisional
Cause of Death Certificates of the deceased persons and the injury
reports of the injured persons; and after receipt of the consent of the
Central Government for prosecution of the accused persons under the
provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and after receipt of
the reports from various agencies regarding the assessment/valuation
of the damaged property, the Chief Investigating Officer PW-103
submitted proposal to Government of Maharashtra for according
sanction to prosecute the accused persons under the provisions of
Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. After having examined the material
placed along with the proposal, the Government of Maharashtra on
04-02-2004 was pleased to accord sanction to prosecute Accused Nos.
1 to 6 under Sections 3, 4, 5(1) and 20 of Prevention of Terrorism Act,
2002.
54. After receiving sanction under Section 50 of POTA, 2002
for prosecution of charge sheeted accused Nos.1 to 6, Chief IO
PW-103 submitted charge sheet on 5th February, 2004 against A1 to
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
37/479
37 conf.5.09
A6 (including PW-2) as stated earlier for commission of offences
under Section 120-B, r/w Sections 302, 307, 326, 324 IPC, u/s 3, 4, 5
of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, u/s 5 and 9(B) of India
Explosives Act, 1884, u/s 3, 4, 5 and20 of Prevention of Terrorist
Act, 2002, along with absconding accused Shafakat, Abid, Khalid,
Maqsud, Jahangir, Bilal, Samiulla and Rehman named in the charge
sheet. Upon filing of the said charge sheet, cognizance was taken by
the Special Court and above stated POTA Special Case No.1/2004 was
registered. As stated earlier, charge sheeted accused No.4 being
accorded pardon on the basis of prosecution application, he was
examined at the trial as PW-2. While charge sheeted accused Nos.5 &
v6 were renumbered as A4 & A5.
55. On 29-6-2004 the charge as described in detail in Exh. P-5
was framed against A1 to A5 for commission of offences under eight
different heads i.e. from head Firstly to Eighthly for offences under
Section i) 120-B of IPC, r/w 3, 4, 5(1) & 20 of POTA Act so also r/w.
Section 302, 307, 427 of IPC and Section 3 of Explosive Substances
Act, Section 9(B) of the Explosive Act, 1884 and Section 3 of
Damage to Public Property Act. ii) 3(2) of POTA Act, r/w. Section
120-B IPC. iii) 3(3) of POTA Act. iv) 120-B of IPC r/w. S. 302, 307
of IPC and S. 3(2), 3(3) of POTA, 2002 and Section 4 of Damage to
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
38/479
38 conf.5.09
Public Property Act, 1984 r/w. S. 427 of IPC and S. 3 to 6 of Explosive
Substances Act, 1908 and S. 9(B) of Explosive Act, 1884. v) 302, 307,
427 r/w. S. 34 further r/w. S. 120-B of IPC, further r/w. S. 3, 4, 5 & 6
of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and U/s. 3 of Damage to Public
Property Act, and S. 3 & 4 of Prevention of Terrorism Act. vi) 302,
307, 427, r/w. S. 120-B of IPC also u/s. 5, 9(b) of Indian Explosive Act
r/w. S. 3, 4, 5, 6 of Explosive Substances Act and r/w. S. 3 of Damage
to Public Property and U/s. 3 & 4 of POTA, 2002 (against accused
Nos.1 to 3 only) vii) 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (against
accused No.3 only) viii) 3 of Explosive Substances Act (against
accused No.5 only)
56. All the accused Nos. 1 to 5 pleaded not guilty to the charge
framed against them and claimed to be tried. The prosecution at the
trial adduced oral evidence of 103 witnesses. In addition to the oral
testimonies of the said witnesses the prosecution also relied upon the
several documents which were proved through the said witnesses or
otherwise taken on record due to consent given by the defence in
response to application under Section 294 of the Code.
57. The documents taken on record and marked exhibit are as
mentioned in paragraph nos.53 to 55 of the judgment of Trial Court
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
39/479
39 conf.5.09
under consideration i.e. the documents such as i) Death Certificates, ii)
Provisional Death Certificates, iii) Postmortem Notes and iv) Inquest
panchanamas of deceased persons as well as v) the Medical
Certificates of the injured persons vi) inquest panchnamas. vii)
common panchanamas regarding seizure of blood stained clothes of
injured and deceased. viii) map of place of offence of DCB CID Cr
No. 157 of 2002, CR. No. 75 of 2003, CR No. 91 of 2003 and CR No.
86 of 2003. ix) panchanama regarding destroying of RDX.
58. As aforesaid, prosecution at the trial examined in all 103
witnesses, i.e. witnesses referred herein above and so also 28 more
witnesses i. e. PW-23, PW-25, PW-34, PW-36 and PW-64 to PW-87
on the point that their nearest relatives lost lives in the twin bomb blast,
dated 25-8-2003. Apart from the above witnesses PW-3 Rajendra
Pawar, PW-4 Anil Parmar, PW-5 Ashok Sakpal, PW-6 Manoj Patil and
PW-7 Ghanshyam Dubey were examined on the point of purchase of
SIM cards of Airtel bearing No. 9892451164 and 9892077831 by Nasir
and A1. PW-11 Jyotsna Chandratre was the Special Executive Officer
who held TIP of photographs of slain terrorist Nasir at Colaba Police
Station on 3-1-2004. PW-13 Pandit Bhandalkar has prepared the sketch
of the scene of offences in CR No. 91 of 2003 and in CR No. 206 of
2003. The details of remaining prosecution witnesses being correctly
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
40/479
40 conf.5.09
described in detail in paragraph nos. 56 to 64 of judgment of Trial
Court under consideration and the relevant evidence qua submissions
advanced before us being dealt in the further part of the judgment the
same is not unnecessarily narrated for the sake of brevity.
59. The accused in defence have adduced defence evidence i.e.
A1 has examined himself as DW-4 and has also examined 2
witnesses i.e. (DW-5) Ex-Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, Shri
Ranjitsingh Sharma and (DW-6).Ex-Home Minister of the State Shri
Chagan Bhujbal. Similarly A5 has examined himself as DW-1 and
has examined DW-2 his son Shaikh Mohd. Ismail. A5 has examined
ACP Sadashiv Patil as DW-3 to point out that statement of PW-8
Ajmeri Mohd. Ali Shaikh was recorded by him in connection with
bomb blast incident in Mumbai dtd. 11-7-2006. Defence has also relied
upon as many as 124 documents/Exhibits.
FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL
COURT
60. After hearing both the parties and assessing the evidence
adduced at the trial, the trial Court came to the conclusion that:
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
41/479
41 conf.5.09
i) A1, PW-2, deceased accused Nasir and other
wanted accused had hatched criminal conspiracy
partly at Dubai in the month of August 2002 in the
house of Nasir at Dubai and after returning to India,
A1 and Nasir along with A2 and A3 had held several
conspiracy meetings in the house of A1 at Mumbai for
chalking out detail plan for doing bomb blasts at
crowded places in Mumbai and thus conspiracy ofdoing terrorist acts in Mumbai was hatched partly in
Dubai and partly in Mumbai.
ii) sanction of the Central Govt. u/s 188 of Cr. P. C.
was not necessary for trial of the accused persons for
the offence u/s 120-B of IPC
iii) A2 was found in unauthorized possession of
hazardous explosive substances in his house at 22.40
hrs. on 31-8-2003.
iv) A2 and A3 were found in unauthorized possession
of hazardous explosive substances in their house R.
No. D-7 Salim Chawl, Chimatpada on 1-9-2003 at hrs.
v) on 1-9-2003 at 7.50 hrs. A1 was found in
unauthorised possession of hazardous explosive
substances in a room occupied by him bearing R. No.
14 Salim Chawl, Chimatpada.
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
42/479
42 conf.5.09
vi) A1 to A-3 and deceased Nasir in pursuance of the
above criminal conspiracy had planted timer bomb
below the rear seat in BEST Bus of route No. 312
(336) bearing No. MH-01 H-8765 near Seepz BEST
Bus Depot, MIDC, Andheri (E), in the evening of
2-12-2002 with intent to kill maximum number of
persons travelling in the above bus and to cause loss
to the public and private properties.
vii) A1 to A3 and deceased Nasir in pursuance of the
above criminal conspiracy had planted a timer bomb
in a BEST bus of route No. 340 bearing No. MH-01 H
8246 which was exploded at about 21.10 hrs. on
28-7-2003 at Karani Lane Junction, Ghatkopar (W),
Mumbai causing the death of two persons and injury
to 60 passengers and also causing damage to public
and private property worth Rs. 16.30 lacs.
viii) A1 to A3 and deceased Nasir in pursuance of the
above criminal conspiracy, planted timer bomb in a
motor taxi bearing No. MH-02-R-2022 which was kept
waiting at the junction of Dhanji Street, Yusuf Ali
Road, in front of Sagar Juice Centre, Near
Mumbadevi Temple, Mumbai on 25-8-2003 at noon
time and the powerful bomb kept in the above taxi was
exploded at 12.40 hrs. causing the death of 36 persons
and injury to 138 persons and also caused damage to
public and private properties worth Rs. 95 lacs.
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
43/479
43 conf.5.09
ix) A1 to A3 and deceased Nasir in pursuance of
above criminal conspiracy, kept timer bomb in airbag
and airbag was kept in the dickey of motor taxi
bearing No. MH-02-R-2007 which was parked in
Pay & Park site opposite Hotel Taj at Gateway of
India, P. J. Ramchandani Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400
005 on 25-8-2003 and the said bomb was exploded at13.05 hours killing 16 persons and causing injuries to
46 persons and causing huge damage to public and
private properties.
x) That valid sanction Exh. P-573 was accorded by
Government of Maharashtra u/s 50 of POTA 2002 to
prosecute the Accused persons.
The trial Court in consonance with the said findings held that
accused A1 to A3 have committed the offences as described in
commencing paragraph of the judgment and sentenced them
accordingly.
Brief Submissions of Both Sides
61. The learned APP by and large supported the judgment under
consideration and particularly finding of guilt of A1 to A3 for
commission of the offences as arrived by the trial Court and sentence
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
44/479
44 conf.5.09
of death and the other sentences awarded by the trial Court. The crux
of her submission, is that, barring not accepting the evidence of
certain witnesses and sanction as pointed out by her discussed at
appropriate stage, the trial Court has properly appreciated and accepted
the evidence of the prosecution witness. She further urged that
considering the nature of offences committed and the purpose behind
committing them i.e. the conspiracy hatched to commit terrorist act and
commission of terrorist act as established by the prosecution evidence
no fault can be found even with the sentence awarded. She submits that
sentence of death awarded by trial Court deserves to be confirmed and
no interference is warranted regarding the other sentence awarded to
A1 to A3. She also urged that in the event of agreement with her
submission of the evidence of particular witness was wrongly
discarded by the trial Court, then, the concerned accused whose
involvement/guilt for commission of offences in relevant incident is
established, will be also required to be held guilty for such offences.
The learned APP made elaborate submissions by taking us
meticulously through the record of the case for supporting her said
submissions. For the sake of brevity, the relevant submissions
meriting consideration and/or discussion are narrated and considered at
appropriate stage while considering the relevant evidence and/or
relevant aspect.
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
45/479
45 conf.5.09
62. Learned APP also made elaborate submission for allowing
the writ petition preferred by the prosecution for quashing and setting
aside the opinion/direction given by Central Review Committee and
remanding the matter back to the said committee. She also made
elaborate submission for allowing appeal preferred by the prosecution
against the order dated 18th November, 2008 passed by POTA Special
Court, holding that the prosecution against A4 and A5 is deemed to
have been withdrawn from the day the directions were given by
Central Review Committee and consequently releasing them. She
urged for quashing and setting aside the said order and sending the
matter back to the trial court for deciding the same in accordance with
the law. We shall elaborate this submission a little later.
63. Mr. Pasbola learned counsel for A3 opened the defence
arguments. At the outset, he submitted that none of the accused have
disputed the factum of bomb explosions and/or people having died or
being injured and of severe damage caused to property in and around
the place of blast. But he urged that the prosecution has failed to
establish that the explosions were caused by using a particular
chemical as claimed by the prosecution i.e. attempt to commit the blast
in BEST Buses at MIDC Seepz and blast committed at Ghatkopar by
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
46/479
46 conf.5.09
using bombs containing gelatin sticks and for remaining two incidents
of bomb blasts by using RDX i.e. at Zaveri Bazar and Gateway of
India.
64. He further urged that though it is the prosecution case that
conspiracy was hatched in Dubai, the probable period during which
the same was hatched has not been specified in the charges framed at
the trial. Further, the said conspiracy ought to be before December,
2002. Even the evidence about the same is too sketchy and
unbelievable i.e. in the shape of evidence of the PW-2 approver and the
evidence of PW-1 and the evidence of confession of accused and that
too confession of the co-accused. He submits that the prosecution
cannot rely on the alleged confession of approver as he was not tried
as co-accused.
65. He further urged that the incident of attempt to cause
explosion was committed on 2nd December, 2002 while the incident of
explosion had occurred on 28th July, 2003 while the remaining two
incidents of explosion had occurred on 25th of August, 2003. By
pointing out the provision of Section 219 of the Code, he urged that as
per the said provision, three offences of the same kind committed
within a period of one year can be tried together at one trial. The trial
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
47/479
47 conf.5.09
conducted for clubbing four incidents together, is illegal. He urged that
such trial was and in fact caused prejudice to A3. Hence, the trial
against A3 is vitiated.
66. He further urged that the charge framed at the trial is
blissfully vague. It is urged that the charge for every distinct offence as
required under the law is not framed against A3. The same has caused
prejudice to A3. Hence, it has also occasioned failure of justice.
67. He further urged that encountered accused Nasir has not
been named as a co-conspirator in the charge as framed though
principal participant. According to the learned Counsel, the evidence
regarding the death of Nasir is unbelievable. Amongst other, the SIM
card recovered near the body of Nasir is not referred to in the charge-
sheet. The evidence regarding purchase of SIM card by Nasir as well
his encounter will have to be discarded. Besides, the said fact has not
been established by the prosecution relying only on evidence of
PW-1 which is insufficient as the same is not substantiated,
corroborated by any other evidence.
68. He further urged that the prosecution evidence does not
clearly disclose as to when and how provisions of POTA was applied
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
48/479
48 conf.5.09
to this case. For, when A2, 1 and 3 were arrested in connection with
Ghatkopar incident, POTA was applied. Presumably, it was applied
later on. That was to circumvent the non-compliance of Section 51 r/w
32(5) of POTA. On this basis, it is argued that the alleged confessions
will have to be excluded from consideration being statements of
accused recorded while in police custody before application of POTA
provisions. He submits that there is serious dispute regarding the date
of arrest of the accused i.e. A1 to 3. According to the prosecution, it is
31st August, 2003, whereas, the defence claims the arrest on 30th
August, 2003.
69. He further submits that the defence was denied opportunity
to rebut the prosecution evidence. In that, though police officer
(Gulabrao Pole) who had allegedly recorded confession of Accused in
another case was present in Court he was not allowed to be examined
by the defence. That police officer had owned up the responsibility of
planting of bomb in the other case.
70. He further submits that the prosecution evidence itself
discloses that after recording of alleged confession and production
before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the accused was sent back to
police custody. That was opposed to Section 32(5) of POTA. Further,
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
49/479
49 conf.5.09
the accused had partially retracted confession before the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, but later on completely retracted the same.
For all these reasons, the alleged confessions will have to be discarded,
inter alia, being opposed to provisions of POTA.
71. He further submits that the incriminating portion in the
alleged confessions were not put to the Accused to enable the
Accused to offer explanation. Even for that reason, the same cannot be
looked into.
72. He further urged that in the present case all the C.A. Reports,
without examining any of the Chemical Analyser were admitted in
evidence under Section 293 of Cr.P.C. The provisions of Section 293
only makes the reports contemplated under the same as admissible and
does not dispense with the proof of the same. The material stated in
the CA reports and sought to be used against A3 was not at all put to
her during her examination effected under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He
further urged that as such, user of the same without giving her an
opportunity to explain the incriminating material from the same used
against her has resulted in causing grave prejudice to her.
73. He further urged that it was incumbent to examine the
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
50/479
50 conf.5.09
Sanctioning Authority who applied his mind before according the
sanction for prosecution for the offences under POTA. It was urged
that keeping in mind the dictum in the case of State (NCT of Delhi)
vrs. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, 2005 SCC (Cri) 1715 i.e. the
defence ought to have been permitted to examine the file pertaining to
grant of sanction, which document being contemporaneous record
alone can resolve the issue of non-application of mind. He urged that
in present case such an inspection of the file pertaining to according of
sanction as well as request to examine the Sanctioning Authority was
denied to the defence. Thus, fair opportunity was not given to the
Accused to defend at the trial and the same has occasioned failure of
justice.
74. He then urged that sanction Exhibit 568 (relating to Seepz
and Ghatkopar) should be discarded as it makes no reference to the
provision in respect of which the sanction is accorded.
75. He faintly urged that the entire trial is vitiated as the Special
Judge came to be appointed after the Repeal Act came into force.
76. He also urged that there has been serious miscarriage of
justice and grave prejudice to the Accused because of unfair trial. In
that, the prosecutor was allowed to ask leading questions to the tutored
planted prosecution witnesses, inspite of repeated objections taken by
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
51/479
51 conf.5.09
the defence. Not only that the Trial Judge adopted an unusual
procedure of recording of entire examination in chief in question-
answer format. It is submitted that the objections taken by the defence
were not immediately answered. Inspite of ruling that the same will be
answered at the time of final judgment, no ruling has been given
thereon. It is submitted that this anamoly has crept in the proceedings
as the major evidence was recorded before two different Judges. The
trial Judge who pronounced the Judgment took over the case at the
stage of recording of Section 313 statement.
77. He urged that articles allegedly recovered from the house of
accused Nos.1 & 3 and the another owned by accused No1 are gelatin
sticks. It is the prosecution case that two blasts (at Gateway of India
and at Zaveri Bazar) were caused by means of RDX, while gelatin
was used in other two incidents. It is also case of prosecution case
that the encountered accused Nasir had procured RDX and supplied
the same. However, no investigation has been done regarding the
manner in which the gelatin sticks have been procured by the Accused
- which were admittedly easily available in the market and bearing the
mark of manufacturer Vardha. It was urged that no investigation in
this regard creates a reasonable doubt that the gelatin allegedly
recovered from the house of Accused was a planted article. This has
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
52/479
52 conf.5.09
caused serious prejudice to the Accused.
78. He urged that PW 103 the Chief Investigating Officer has
given the evidence on the basis of written prepared notes and not by
refreshing his memory by perusing case diary/crime report. This has
caused serious prejudice to the Accused. His entire evidence is liable to
be discarded as the same indicates that he himself has not carried out
any investigation. It was urged that as per the provisions of POTA all
the investigations are required to be carried out by Investigating
Officer of a particular rank. The evidence collected by the Officers not
authorized to investigate the offences under POTA, will be required to
be discarded as the same is in violation of the provisions of law. It was
urged that in the present case, the investigation was only supervised by
Chief Investigation Officer of the rank of ACP. That will not cure the
defect and it goes to the root of the matter.
79. It was urged that the various other deficiencies to be pointed
during the course of argument will also indicate that the defence was
not given proper opportunity and the trial was unfair. It was urged that
the same would be most relevant while considering the order of
acquittal / release passed in favour of co-accused A4 and A5. It was
urged that certain documents were called for. The same were not
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
53/479
53 conf.5.09
furnished to the defence. That has resulted in denial of fair opportunity
to the defence as also warranting drawing of adverse inference against
the prosecution. In the result, the benefit of doubt should be given to
the Accused and they should be acquitted.
80. Learned counsel thereafter made exhaustive submissions
with regard to four incidents in question i.e. regarding the witnesses
examined by the prosecution and so also regarding the encounter
incident and so also the aspects pertaining to the evidence of PW2
Approver, making himself as an approver by the prosecution, grant of
pardon, non recording of his statement, appointment of the Special
Judge after POTA was repealed, sanctions accorded for prosecution of
offences under Explosive Act and/or under Explosive Substances Act
etc. for submitting that the evidence adduced has not established guilt
of A3 and/or some of the evidence deserves to be excluded from
consideration.
81. Learned counsel thus urged that the guilt of A3 is based upon
very slender and unreliable evidence in the shape of her confession,
uncorroborated evidence of PW2, confession of the co-accused and
unacceptable evidence of her identification made by the witnesses who
are either planted by the prosecution and/or in the nature of chance
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
54/479
54 conf.5.09
witnesses. It was urged that curiously enough all the witnesses who
claim to have identified A3 or the other co-accused, have done so
because of the quarrel, bickering ensued between the Accused and the
concerned witness. It was urged that even assuming that A3 or any of
the other Accused was entrusted to plant a bomb then it is difficult to
perceive that such a person will involve himself / herself in a quarrel in
the manner alleged. It was urged that this theory propounded by the
prosecution is against the grain of probability. That itself is a
circumstance justifying the submission that the said witnesses are
unnatural witnesses and have been planted by the prosecution.
82. Learned counsel urged that A3 is entitled to be acquitted
from all charges levelled against her or at least considering the feeble
nature of evidence of her identification, she deserves to be given
benefit of doubt.
83. Mr. Khan Abdul Wahab, learned counsel for A1, at the
outset, submitted that he is adopting all submissions advanced by
learned counsel for A3 Mr. Pasbola as the same would be applicable
even in the case of A1.
84. He, however, urged with regard to the incident of alleged
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
55/479
55 conf.5.09
encounter on 12th September, 2003, in which death of two persons
(absconding accused Nasir and one more) is said to have occurred, the
prosecution has utterly failed to establish that the dead body of the
person was of none other than the co-conspirator Nasir. The
prosecution has rested the matter mainly upon the sole evidence of PW
1 who had lodged the said complaint.
85. It was further urged in the same context that photograph of
the said dead person who is said to be Nasir has not been shown to any
of the witnesses in the present case to establish that the said dead
person was accompanying A1 as claimed by them. It was urged that
merely showing some cards of Bank containing photograph of Nasir
would not be sufficient to establish that the person killed in the
encounter was Nasir.
86. It was further urged that the said incident having occurred
within the area of Dadar Police Station and as separate case was
registered for the same, it was necessary for the prosecution to
produce papers of the said case and/or examine the concerned
witnesses to establish that the incident as claimed by the prosecution
had in fact occurred. It was urged that the prosecution has not adduced
any evidence beyond the evidence of PW1 and producing the inquest
panchanama in the said case. Even that Panchnama has not been
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
56/479
56 conf.5.09
proved by adducing any independent evidence of panch witnesses.
87. It was further urged that even assuming that two sim-cards
as claimed by the prosecution were allegedly seized from the mobiles
on the person of the said deceased, still no number engrossed upon
the said sim cards has surfaced in the evidence for linking the said sim
cards which is said to have allegedly purchased by Nasir from mobile
shop. It was urged that merely sim cards purchased from the shop
having a particular number would not be sufficient to come to the
conclusion that the same were sim cards which were found on the
person of deceased for establishing the link between A1 and said
Nasir.
88. It was urged that the evidence of PW1 in paragraph 9 reveals
connection of the material allegedly found from the encountered
person, bearing the names of certain persons. It was urged that none
of the said persons have been examined to establish the link of the said
material with the said persons or for establishing identity of Nasir as
being the same person who was encountered. In the same context it
was urged that the said material reveals different names on driving
licence or the name of the owner of vehicle as Umesh Suresh Nadkarni
with address as 7.2 Old Hanuman Building, Second floor, Chuna Lane,
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
57/479
57 conf.5.09
Bombay-7 and the same being transferred to Mrs. Ayesha Shah Sayyad
Hanif with Ghatkopar address. It was urged that the same is the case
regarding election identity card which stands in the name of Abdul
Sayyad Rahman Ali with photograph of deceased (allegedly Nasir)
with address of Hyderabad. It was urged that all the defects have been
clearly brought out in the cross examination recorded on page no.1136.
89. It was further urged that panchanama regarding gelatin stick
being found in the house of said encountered accused has not been
produced / proved in the present case for establishing the link of the
said person encountered.
90. It was urged that the evidence of PW11 Special Executive
Officer reveals that photograph of Nasir i.e. taken from the person of
deceased was used for holding photo test identification parade. It was
urged that the evidence pertaining to the said parade reveals that stock
police panch Narayan Shetty was used as a panch witness for the said
parade. It was urged that for establishing the said fact, application was
made on behalf of the defence, the same was rejected by the Court.
That has prejudiced A1 and co-accused in establishing most relevant
facet of their defence that the prosecution has used stock police panch.
91. In the same context it was urged that the parade panchanama
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
58/479
58 conf.5.09
was prepared on a typewriter i.e. the typewriter which was used earlier
by SEO for typing several documents for the same police station for
which he had conducted the said parade. It was urged that even the
photograph of dummies used for the said parade has not been
produced. The entire evidence regarding the said parade is doubtful
and so also the alleged identification of the said Nasir allegedly made
by the witnesses is highly doubtful deserving no credence.
92. Learned counsel also made exhaustive submissions
regarding the arrest of A1 and so also the arrest of A2 and about the
sealing aspect and the evidence of PW103 in relation to making PW2
approver, confession etc., identification of A1.
93. In nutshell, it is the submission of learned counsel for A1
that the trial was not fair to the said accused, the evidence relied for
drawing the conclusion of his guilt is unreliable and unworthy of
credence or against the grain of probability. Rather he has been made
a scapegoat and his guilt is not established by prosecution evidence and
he deserves to be acquitted or at least deserves to be given benefit of
doubt.
94. Though learned counsel for A2 submitted written
8/2/2019 Mumbai Gateway of India Bomb Blast Case-POTA Case Judgement Bombay High Court
59/479
59 conf.5.09
submissions, he was asked to make oral submissions at least to
highlight important points. He chose to make limited submissions
pertaining to the incident or the circumstances showing involvement of
the A2 for which he is convicted. The same are dealt with at
appropriate place while discussing the prosecution evidence pertaining
to the relevant topics in light of the rival submissions about the same.
Now with regard to the remaining submissions, he has also made the
similar grievance like counsel for A1 and A3 of having not received a
fair trial by pointing out certain defects regarding the charge framed
and / or the manner in which the trial was conducted i.e. by allowing
putting leading questions and / or objection raised during the course of
trial being not decided properly. It will not be out of place to mention
that during the oral arguments on behalf of A2, learned counsel did
not point out as to which objection raised at the instance of A2 during
the trial requires consideration.
95. It was urged that charge framed against A2 at head fifthly for
explosion occurred at Zaveri Bazar and for explosion occurred at head
sixthly Gateway of India were vague to give a fair idea of the
prosecution
Recommended