MAULANA NASEERUDDLN MOHD. HANEEFUDDLN versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 385 · Decided: 17-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MAULANA NASEERUDDlN MOHD. HANEEFUDDlN 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF GUJARAT 
JULY 17, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND LOKESHWAR SlNGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002: 
s. 32--Conspiracy to commit murder of Hindu leaders-Confession 
recorded by DCP-Retracted after 40 days-Bail sought on the ground that C 
retracted confession cannot be treated as relevant substantial evidence-
Rejected by special Court and High Court-On appeal, held: Considering 
the various factual aspects highlighted by Courts below, not a fit case to 
grant bail. 
Prosecution case was that appellant and others, had hatched conspiracy 
. in Ahmedabad and Hyderabad to commit murder of Hindu leaders through 
boys by imparting them training in arms in Pakistan. The complaint was filed 
for offence punishable under Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Prevention of 
Terrorism Act, 2002 (POT A). 
D 
E 
The appellant was released on bail in another offence at Hyderabad on 
health ground. Thereafter he was produced before special POTA Court on 
2.11.2004 and was remanded till 9.11.2004. A confessional statement was 
recorded on 7.11.2004 by the DCP. The same was retracted after 40 days. 
Charge sheet qua the appellant was filed in special POT A Court The appellant 
moved an application for bail However, it was rejected by Special POT A Judge. ' F 
Appellant filed appeal before the High Court. 
The High Court found that the special Court had elaborately dealt with 
various aspects of the case relating to appellant; that during the course of ' 
investigation confessional statement was recorded by DCP, an authorized 
officer under s. 32 oftbe POTA which is part of the charge sheet which was G 
retracted after about 40 days by sending letter to the Special POTA Court , 
through the jail authorities; that even if the confessional statement recorded 
under s. 32 of POT A was retracted, same can be considered as a piece of , 
evidence at the time of deciding the bail application; that the retraction was 
385 
fl 
. "' 
386 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 8 S.C.R. 
A not done within the stipulated time and that the Special Court was justified in 
/ 
refusing the bail application. Aggrieved appellant filed the present appeal. 
,_.,,, 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Order of the Special Court, POT A as affirmed by the High 
B Court cannot be faulted and no interference is called for. tpara 141 (389-G) 
2. The Special POT A Court had directed the jail authority to refer to 
the appellant to Civil Hospital and on advice of the expert to get him examined 
,A 
and if required, admit him to the Ci,·il Hospital for the period as ·may be 
prescribed by doctors. The experts have expressed the view that he can be 
c treated as an outdoor patient by examining him at the Civil Hospital. 
(Para 11) (389-D, E) 
3. It is no doubt true that there is no time statutorily fixed during which 
the confessional statement can be retracted; but it has to be done within a 
D 
. reasonable time. !Para 12) (389-E, FJ 
4. Considering the various factual aspects highlighted by the trial Court 
and the High Court, it is not a fit case where bail can be granted to the 
appellant. (Para 13) (389-F) 
E 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 904 of 
2007. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 20.04.2006 of the High Court of 
Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeat'No. 1546 of2005. 
F 
Kamini Jaiswal, Sunita Dwivedi, Nitya Ramakrishnan, B.B. Chauhan, K. 
Krishna Kumar and M.A. Chinnaswamy for the Appellant. 
~ 
Hemantika Wahi and Pinky Behera for the Respondent. 
., 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. I. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench 
of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the criminal Appeal filed by the appellant. 
~ 
The said appeal related to the rejection of prayer for bail in connection with 
> 
H 
Crime Register No. I-6 of 2003 registered with DCB (Crime Branch) Police 
MAULANANASEERUDDINMOHD.HANEEFUDDIN•·.STATEOFGUJARAT[PASAYAT,J] 387 
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 
A 
at Ahmedabad and Hyderabad to commit murder of Hindu leaders through B 
boys by imparting them training in anns in Pakistan. The complaint was filed 
for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 120(8), 121, 
12 l(A), 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.