AFZALKHAN @ BABU MURTUZAHAN PATHAN versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 73 · Decided: 17-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

f 
) 
_;.· 
AFZALK.HAN @ BABU MURTUZAK.HAN PA THAN 
v. 
STA TE OF GUJARAT 
MAY 17, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Bail-Entitlement to, in case of TADA detenus-One accused allegedly 
went to Pakistan as part of a group for training in terrorist activities-
Another accused provided monetary help to the group and was also found C · 
in possession of large quantity of arms-Held: Ordinarily, bail application, 
in a case of this nature, which involves the security of the State should be 
rejected-It is very difficult to say at this stage as to whether the accused are 
parties to a larger conspiracy or not-Strong prima facie case made out 
against the accused-Their release at this juncture may hamper smooth 
conduct of trial since main witnesses are yet to be examined-Designated 0 
Judge directed to conclude trial as expeditiously as possible-Terrorist and 
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-Penal Code, 1860-ss. 120(B), 
121, 12l(A), 122 and 123-Arms Act-ss. 25(J)(b), 25(J)(c), 27 and 29. 
Bail application-Duty of the Court-Held: Courts should assign E 
reasons while allowing or refusing an application for bail-But detailed 
reasons touching the merit of the matter should not be given, which may 
prejudice the accused 
According to the prosecution, the two Appellants were involved in 
I 
terrorist activities. It is alleged that one Appellant went to Pakistan as part F 
of a group for training in terrorist activities, while the other Appellant provided 
monetary help to the group and had also been in possession of a large quantity 
of arms which was recovered pursuant to confessional statements of various 
persons. 
In appeals to this Court, it is contended that the Appellants are entitled G 
to grant of bail inter alia on the ground that no overt acts has been attributed 
to them; that the confessional statements recorded were not confidence 
inspiring and that recovery of arms by itself would not lead to any conviction 
under TADA 
73 
74 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
,. 
HELD: 1.1. The value of a confessional statements made before a high 
ranking officer under the Special Acts and the precautions which are 
~ 
necessary to be taken tht;refrom which are exceptions to the provisions of 
the general statute namely Indian Evidence Act had been considered by this 
' 
B Court in some of its decisions. The question as to where irregularity, if any 
had been committed in recording the confessional statement of the accused 
or the same otherwise would not inspire confidence before a court of law is a 
matter which would fall for consideration of the Trial Judge. An irregularity 
made in recording a statement may be held to be curable and admissible in 
,_ 
c evidence. (Paras 8, 12, and 13J [77-D; 81-A, BJ 
1.2. Courts should assign reasons while allowing or refusing an 
application for bail. But detailed reasons touching the merit of the matter 
should not be given, which may prejudice the accused. What is necessary is 
that the order should not suffer from non-application of mind. At this stage a 
D detailed examim~tion ofevidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of 
the case is not required to be undertaken. [Para 16J [82-C, DJ 
1.3. Ordinarily, a bail application, in a case of this nature, which involves 
the security of the State should be rejected. In a case of this nature, it is very 
_, 
difficult to say at this stage as to whether they are parties to the larger 
E conspiracy or not. In the evidence, it is alleged that one of the appellants had 
gone for training to Pakistan, another had provided money and he had been 
in possession of a large quantity of arms. A strong prima facie case has been 
made out against the appellants. Their release at this juncture may hamper 
the smooth conduct of trial since main witnesses are yet to be examined. One 
F of the appellants hails from a different State. It may be difficult to secure his 
presence, if released on bail at this crucial juncture. In this view of the matter, 
the interest of justice shall be subserved ifthe Designated Judge is directed 
to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six 
months from the date of c6mmunication of this order. 
[Paras 17, 20, and 21) (82-E; 83-A, B, C, DJ 
G 
State a/Tamil Nadu through Superintendent of Police CBIIS!Tv. Na/ini 
and Ors., A.I.R. (1999) SC 2640, relied on. 
People's Union for Civil Liberties and Anr v. Union of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.