Appeal against rejection of second bail application under CrPC 439 in an NIA case. High Court dismissed appeal holding that specific bar under UAPA 43D(5) prevents release due to prima facie case and prior conviction.
Criminal Appeal dismissed. Bail application rejected under Section 43D(5) UAPA not entertained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 64/2023
Mazhar Khan Son Of Israil Khan, R/o House No. 89, Smta Nagar, Anand Colony, Ps Station Road, Ratlam Madhya Pradesh (Presently The Accused Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
N.i.a. New Delhi, Through Special Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Syed Saadat Ali Mr. Ashutosh Surana Mr. S.A.H. Razvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Special PP for NIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Order
16/08/2023
[CRLAD-64/2023]
(2 of 3)
30.03.2022 i.e. prior to arrest of the appellant. It is contended that appellant was not present at the time of seizure of explosives. There is nothing in evidence in the charge-sheet to suggest that appellant was having knowledge about the explosives. It is further contended that disclosure of name of appellant in the statement of co-accused recorded by the ATS was on and after 04.04.2022 and merely because his name is appearing, it cannot be read against the appellant, as the statement has been made by the co-accused in police custody. It is contended that incriminating no tower material was found in the mobile recovered from the appellant and the car location also did not connect with the other co-accused.
(3 of 3) [CRLAD-64/2023]
the place is evident from the statement of PW-11 and PW-12. It is contended that accused in the appeal has given a false affidavit before the Court. It is further contended that in the IPDR report, mobile number of the present appellant had connectivity with the co-accused of this case. Accused has also given information under Section 27 of Evidence Act.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
HEENA/66
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the specific bar under Section 43D(5) of UAPA.
Whether prima facie evidence and prior history justify rejection of bail in UAPA case.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Mazhar Khan
N.i.a. New Delhi
Pankaj Bhandari
Bhuvan Goyal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
