2007 (7) TMI 722

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The said appeal related to the rejection of prayer for bail in connection with Crime Register No. 1-6 of 2003 registered with DCB (Crime Branch) Police Station, Ahmedabad. 3. Factual position in a nutshell is as follows: An FIR was lodged on 4.4.2003 with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad, alleging that a conspiracy was hatched by Mufti Sufiyan and Rasulkhan Party at Ahmedabad and Hyderabad to commit murder of Hindu leaders through boys by imparting them training in arms in Pakistan. The complaint was filed for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122, 123 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and Sections 25(1) (b),(c), 27 and 29 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short 'Arms A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appln. No.762 of 2005. However, it was rejected by the learned Special (POTA)Judge, vide order dated 24.5.2005. Questioning, the same, appeal was filed before the High Court. 4. Before the High Court, it was contended that there is no evidence against the present appellant except the alleged confessional statement recorded on 7.11.2004 by the DCP. The confessional statement, it was contended, is unsustainable in law and it was neither in the language known to the appellant nor was it in his hand writing. The confessional statement was recorded in Hindi. In any event, the confessional statement was retracted by the appellant which goes to show that the said confessional statement is concocted with the sole object to involve the appellant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Special POTA Court through the jail authorities. According to the High Court even if the confessional statement recorded under Section 32 was retracted, same can be considered as a piece of evidence at the time of deciding the bail application. Further the retraction was not done within the stipulated time. The High Court was of the view that the learned Special Court was justified in refusing the bail application. 7. The stands taken before the High Court were reiterated before this Court. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the FIR relates to the incidents allegedly taking place between the period from April, 2002 to April, 2003. 8. In the FIR name of the present appellant-Maulana Naseeruddin was not indicated....