Dismissed

Mohammed Umar v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC28 Aug 2018CRLMB/6501/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a regular bail petition filed by a petitioner accused of terrorism-related offences under the UAPA and Exp Subs Act, holding no ground for bail despite custody duration, but directed trials court for expeditious disposal.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; though petitioner remained in custody. Trial court directed to dispose of trial expeditiously.

Mohammed Umar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 6501/2018

¶3

Mohammed Umar S/o Dr. Mohammed Iliyas B/c Musalman, R/o Mohalla Jagirdaran, Ward No.2, Police Station Kotwali District Sikar, At Present In Central Jail, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through P.P.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jaswant Singh Rathore Adv.

¶9

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Guru Charan Singh Gill, AAG with Mr. Chandan Ahuja Adv. and Ms. Vandana Sharma Adv.

¶10

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Judgment

¶12

28/08/2018

¶13

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 3/2014 registered at Police Station SOG, Jaipur for offence under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of The Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and Section 16, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 20 and 23 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act’) and Sections 121, 121A, 122, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. In-fact, the petitioner was being incited to join the terrorist organization, but

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLMB-6501/2018]

¶17

he had not done so. There is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner has ever participated in any terrorist activity.

¶18

Learned State counsel has opposed the petition and has submitted that as per the material collected during investigation, petitioner had participated in the meetings held by the terrorist organization, wherein, reference was made to Jihad. It also transpired that the petitioner was not attending the coaching class in ALLEN Coaching Centre for preparation, as a pre-medical student. It also transpired during investigation that the petitioner had telephonic conversation with main accused Mohammad Maruf. After watching videos, it was discussed by the accused to execute bomb blasts. It also transpired during investigation that the petitioner had participated in the meetings with his co-accused and had conversations with his co-accused. From the personal search of the petitioner, one memory card was recovered and on decoding the same, it transpired that MP3 and MP4 audio recording were with regard to incitement of Jihad . Photographs, of the petitioner while learning how to use firearms were found. One photograph of Osama bin Laden while giving a lecture was also found. Learned State counsel has further submitted that as per Section 43D of the Act, petitioner was not entitled to be released on bail as, prima-facie, there was sufficient material on record to proceed against the petitioner with regard to offences enumerated in Chapter-IV of the Act. Charges have been framed against the petitioner under Sections 16, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 20 and 23 of the Act.

¶19

Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned State counsel and the facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground for grant of bail to the petitioner is made out.

(3 of 3)

[CRLMB-6501/2018]

Dismissed.

However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 27.03.2014, trial court is directed to dispose of the trial expeditiously.

¶24

(SABINA),J

¶25

S.Kumawat-4