Jahir Hak vs The State Of Rajasthan

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 605 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7003 of 2021)

JAHIR HAK Appellant (s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

(1) By the impugned order, the appellant is denied bail

which is sought under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. The appellant was arrested on 08.05.2014 in

connection with FIR 113/2014 of Police Station Pratapnagar,

Jodhpur for offences punishable under Sections 10, 13, 15,

16, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 20, 23 and 38 of the Unlawful

Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short ‘Act of 1967’).

(2) A chargesheet came to be filed against the appellant on

17.09.2014. Charges have been framed against the appellant

on 29.01.2018. It is not in dispute that the appellant has

Signature Not Verifiedbeen in custody for a period of almost 8 years. As far as Digitally signed by Nidhi Ahuja Date: 2022.04.12 17:33:04 IST Reason: stage of the case is concerned, examination of only 6

witnesses have been completed. The seventh witness is being

1 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 605/ 2022 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 7003/ 2021)

examined. Ms. Pragati Neekra, learned counsel for the

State, does not dispute the fact that there are 109

witnesses. Without much dispute, it can be found that the

appellant who is an undertrial prisoner, has already

undergone a long period of incarceration.

(3) This Court issued notice in this matter on 29.09.2021.

Thereafter the matter came up on 26.11.2021 wherein the

complaint of the appellant that out of 180 witnesses cited

by the prosecution, evidence of not even a single witness

was complete was noted; the counsel for the State, was asked

to get instructions and also to submit before the Court as

to the approximate time within which the trial can be

concluded.

(4) Thereafter this Court passed the following order on

03.12.2021:

“The petitioner is in custody since the last 7 years. Learned counsel for the State submits that there are a total of 109 witnesses for prosecution. It is common case that the evidence of even the first witness is not yet completely recorded. In the circumstances, we think it fit to call for a report from the Additional District and Sessions Judge, No. 3, Jodhpur City, as to within what time the trial in the case can be concluded. Accordingly, we direct that Additional District and Sessions Judge, No. 3, Jodhpur City, shall send a report as to the earliest point of time when the trial can be concluded. The report to be sent within a period of three weeks from today.

List the case on 10th January, 2022.”

Pursuant to the said order, a report was filed by the

Judge concerned wherein it was indicated that there is quite

2 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 605/ 2022 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 7003/ 2021)

a probability of taking at least 2 to 3 years in disposal of

the instant case. The said report is dated 20.12.2021.

(5) Thereafter, again, this matter was taken up on

19.01.2022. On the said date, the following order was

passed:

“After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that interest of justice requires that the State places an affidavit before us indicating the position of the other accused with charges against them and the difference, if any, between the petitioner and the other accused. The affidavit shall also indicate about the need for any measures to protect the witnesses who will depose in the trial. The affidavit shall be file on or before 24.01.2022.

The petitioner will be free to file affidavit- in-reply to the affidavit which we have ordered the State to file.

List the matter on 25.01.2022.

(6) Still further, the following order passed on 04.02.2022:

“By the impugned order, the High Court has rejected the application for bail maintained by the petitioner under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

The petitioner has been in custody since 08.05.2014, that is almost for 8 years. Based on an order passed by this Court as to the possibility of an early disposal of the trial itself, the report indicates that even after putting every effort in the matter and keeping in view the number of witnesses, accused persons, Advocates, cross examination by them and the number of cases pending in the Court, there is probability of at least 2-3 years for the disposal in the case.

In the affidavit filed by the State before this Court by way of compliance with the order passed by this Court asking the respondent to indicate about the need for any measures to protect the witnesses who would depose in trial, it has been stated that a total of 110 witnesses shall be deposing during trial out of

3 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 605/ 2022 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 7003/ 2021)

which, the statements of three prosecution witnesses have already been recorded. It is further stated that the concerned official had contacted the private witnesses out of whom three witnesses have apprehended danger to their lives to depose against the accused during trial.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that such an apprehension has not been raised during the past eight years and it is frivolous and there is no threat from the petitioner. This is besides reiterating that there is no material against the petitioner whereas the learned counsel for the State would, on her part, reiterate that it is a matter where very serious offences are alleged and is not a case where bail may be granted to the petitioner. She further would point out that the trial is progressing and the State is also taking effective steps for an early disposal of the matter.

We are of the view that in the facts of this case, when the petitioner has already spent nearly 8 years in custody, the appropriate order to pass would be to first direct the examination of the three witnesses who have raised concerns about threat to their lives from the accused and the matter should receive attention of this Court after their evidence is adduced. However, these witnesses must be examined on a priority basis. In such circumstances, we pass the following order:

There will be a direction that the respondent- State shall ensure that these witnesses are examined on priority basis and that, at any rate, the examination is completed within a maximum period of two months from today.

List this case for further consideration on 11.04.2022.

The State will ensure that the deposition of the witnesses in question shall be placed before this Court after translation on or before 08.04.2022.”

Today the depositions of witnesses mentioned in the

order dated 04.02.2022 have been placed before the Court.

(7) The learned counsel for the appellant would point out

that witness named Devendra Patel has been declared hostile.

As far as the other two witness - Hemant and Pappuram

examined on behalf of the prosecution are concerned, it is

4 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 605/ 2022 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 7003/ 2021)

pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that

there is nothing in the deposition of the said witnesses

which implicates the appellant. This aspect, as such, is

not disputed by the learned counsel for the State. No

doubt, the learned counsel for the State does point out that

in the nature of the case set up against the appellant,

there would be further evidence which may unfold.

(8) In this regard, the basis of the case against the

appellant appears to be largely the fact that he was found

to be in touch with one of the accused and which is sought

to be made good by conversations which the appellant is

alleged to have engaged in with that accused on 31

occasions, who is a co-villager. According to the

respondent, the said accused is the head of a sleeper cell

module of Indian Mujahideen.

(9) We bear in mind the judgment of this Court reported in

Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb (2021) (3) SCC 713. Therein,

the following observations cannot be overlooked:

“12. Even in the case of special legislations like the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 or the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the NDPS Act”) which too have somewhat rigorous conditions for grant of bail, this Court in Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 9 SCC 252 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1156] , Babba v. State of Maharashtra [Babba v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 118] and Umarmia v. State of Gujarat [Umarmia v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 731 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 114] enlarged the accused on bail when they had been in jail for an extended period of time with little possibility of early completion of trial. The constitutionality of harsh conditions for bail in such

5 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 605/ 2022 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 7003/ 2021)

special enactments, has thus been primarily justified on the touchstone of speedy trials to ensure the protection of innocent civilians.

19. Yet another reason which persuades us to enlarge the respondent on bail is that Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA is comparatively less stringent than Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Unlike the NDPS Act where the competent court needs to be satisfied that prima facie the accused is not guilty and that he is unlikely to commit another offence while on bail; there is no such precondition under UAPA. Instead, Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA merely provides another possible ground for the competent court to refuse bail, in addition to the well-settled considerations like gravity of the offence, possibility of tampering with evidence, influencing the witnesses or chance of the accused evading the trial by absconsion, etc.”

(10) No doubt, in the said case, as pointed out by the

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, the Court

was dealing with an order passed by the High Court granting

bail, whereas, in this case, the converse is true, that is,

the impugned order is one rejecting the application for

bail. The fact remains that the appellant has been in

custody as an undertrial prisoner for a period of nearly 8

years already. The appellant, it may be noted, is charged

with offences, some of which are punishable with a minimum

punishment of 10 years and the sentence may extend to

imprisonment for life. Learned counsel for the appellant

also points out that one of the co-accused namely Shri Aadil

Ansari has been released on bail on 30.09.2020 by this

Court. No doubt, in this regard, we keep in mind the

submission of the State that the role attributed to the said

accused is different.

6 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 605/ 2022 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 7003/ 2021)

(11) The condition in Section 43D(5) of the Act of 1967 has

been understood to be less stringent than the provisions

contained in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985, as already noticed by us. We would think that in the

nature of the case against the appellant, the evidence which

has already unfolded and above all, the long period of

incarceration that the appellant has already undergone, time

has arrived when the appellant be enlarged on bail. We bear

in mind the fact that the prosecution seeks to examine as

many as 109 witnesses of which only 6 witnesses have been

fully examined so far. Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set

aside the impugned order and direct that the appellant shall

be released on bail subject to such conditions as shall be

fixed by the trial Court.

Needless to say, the observations which have been made

in this order are for the purpose of deciding the

application for bail and the Court will, undoubtedly, decide

upon the fate of the appellant in the trial on the basis of

the evidence and in accordance with law.

………………………………………………………………………., J.

[ K.M. JOSEPH ]

………………………………………………………………………., J.

[ HRISHIKESH ROY ] New Delhi;

April 11, 2022.

7 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 605/ 2022 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 7003/ 2021)

ITEM NO.32 COURT NO.10 SECTION II

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7003/2021

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-03-2021 in SBCRMBA No. 14646/2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur)

JAHIR HAK Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondent(s)

(With IA No.116433/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.116431/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 11-04-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

For Petitioner(s) Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR Mr. Mujahid Ahmed, Adv.

Mr. Rizwan Ahmed, Adv.

Mr. Danish Sher Khan, Adv.

Mr. A. R. Siddiqui, Adv.

Mr. Mohit Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable order.

Pending applications stand disposed of.

(NIDHI AHUJA) (RENU KAPOOR) AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER

[Signed reportable order is placed on the file.]

8