MAHMOOD RAJASA SAIYED versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 1035 · Decided: 11-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 1035 
( 
). 
MAHMOOD RAJASA SAIYED 
A 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1771 of 2008) 
NOVEMBER 11, 2008 
8, 
[OR. ARIJIT PASAYAT ANOP. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
. .. 
l.4, 
Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 - s. 49(6), (7) ands. 
34 - Arrest of appellant for offences punishable under /PC, 
Arms Act and POTA - Bail application u/s. 49(6) and (7) -
c 
Dismissal of -
On the ground that appellant found in 
possession of fire-arms - Ten live cartridges recovered from 
co-accused and his statement recorded uls. 32 - Notification 
u/s. 4 of POTA in effect when accused charge-sheeted for 
offence of criminal conspiracy - Appeal u/s. 34 - Rejection 
D 
of bail - Interference with - Held: Not called for. . 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1771 of 2008. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 17.7.2006 of the 
E 
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad in Criminal Appeal No. 
1432 of 2004. 
Nima Ramakrishan and. M.A. Chinnasamy for the 
Appellant. 
F 
Hemantika Wahi for the Respondent 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
OR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
G 
""' 
, 
~ 
2. Challenge in this appeal is t~ the order passed by a 
' 
Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the appeal 
filed under Section 34 of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (in 
short 'POTA'). 
1035 
H 
1036 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 
A 
3. Factual details have been indicated in Criminal Appeal 
(Arising out of S.L.P (Crl.) No.4876of2006) disposed of today. 
4. Appellant was arrested in connection with POTA Case 
No.12 of 2003 arising out of ICR No.6 of 2003 of the DCB 
B Crime Police Station, Ahmadabad for offences punishable 
under IPC, Arms Act and POTA. An application for bail was 
filed in terms of Section 49(6) and (7) of POT A. The bail 
application was rejected primarily on the ground that the 
appellant was found in possession of country made revolverand 
foreign made. pistols and undisputedly same was recovered 
C from his possession. Ten live cartridges were also recovered 
from another co-accused. The statement of the co-accused was 
recorded under Section 32 of POT A. The High Court held that 
it is not a fit case for grant of bail. Though, there was allegation 
of illegal custody no material was placed in that regard. In view 
D of the reasons recorded by the High Court and the trial Court 
for rejecting the bail application, we are not inclined to interfere 
with the appeal. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
5. The Trial Court has observed as follows: 
"It is true that, the statement of Anas does not disclose this 
· fact but, when the notification u/s 4 of the POT A is in effect 
and when the accused are charge-l?heeted for the offence 
u/s 120..:s, criminal conspiracy, the Court sees no reason · 
as fo why at this juncture the discretion should be used in 
his favour especially when the criminal conspiracy is 
alleged to be intended by the accused to· terrorize the 
people of a particular section as well as to shake the 
integrity and unity of the nation in the aftermath of Godhra 
incident where some of the accused have also taken the 
training from the neighbouring country Pakistan in deadly 
weapons, arms and ammunitions and who also intended 
to make use of that training by procuring weapons to 
execute the said conspiracy which are allegedly supplied 
by the present applicant accused." 
/ 
·._ .... 
>-
: 
>--- ( 
I 
MAHMOODRAJASA SAIYED v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
1037 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
). 
' 
6. The High Court has also observed in this regard as 
A 
follows: 
·"The appellant was found in possession of country made 
revolver ~nd foreign made pistol and the same was 
recovered from his pocket. The panchnama in respect 
B 
thereof was prepared. The joint panchnama, which was 
~ 
prepared also mentions about the 10 live cartridges which 
were recovered from another accused Mohd. Tarik. The 
statements of the co-accused recorded under Section 32 
of the POT A have been perused by us and prima facie, c 
the statements given by the co-accused indicate 
involvement of the appellant in the commission of crime. 
The contention raised by the learned Advocate for the 
· appellant that the statement of the co-accused Anas 
Machiswala does not disclose prima facie involvement of D 
the appellant is without any substance, as no!ifi~tion under 
Section 4 of the POT A was in effect when ttie accused 
was charge-sheeted, and since the accused was charge-
sheeted for the offence punishable under Sect

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