TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant will furnish a bail bond in the sum of ₹ 1 lakh (One Lakh only) with one surety for a similar amount. b. The Appellant will reside at Porbandar and report daily to the City B Division Police Station, Porbandar at 6:00 PM. He shall not leave the territory of Porbandar. c. If the Appellant is required to attend any Court outside Porbandar the same may be done through video conferencing to be organized by the State. If video conferencing cannot be arranged the Appellant will be produced before any court, if necessary, through Escort by the Police. d.The Passport of the Appellant shall be surrendered before the Designated Court. e. The Appellant shall not indulge in tampering of evidence and influencing of witness ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in column No.2 which refers to persons who were absconding. The 11th supplementary Charge-sheet was filed on 06.06.2005 wherein it was mentioned the Appellant was arrested at 1700 hrs on 10.12.2004. 3. The involvement of the Appellant in the crime was set out in detail in the charge-sheet dated 06.06.2005. The Appellant conspired with Iqbal A Hussain and others sent by Mustapha Majnu Sheikh from Mumbai at his residence at Memonwada, Porbandar and finalized the plan to unload the ammunition. It was mentioned, inter alia, that the Appellant was present at the time of delivery of RDX, weapons etc. and he supervised the transport of some weapons to his house. The rest of the material was loaded in three tempos and was sent to Ghanoli villag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that many of the other accused have either been released on bail or had the benefit of the proceedings against them being quashed. He pleaded for grant of bail in view of his long incarceration for more than 12 years. To buttress his submission the counsel relied upon the judgments of this Court in Izharul Haq Abdul Hamid Shaikh v. State of Gujarat (2009) 5 SCC 283, Ashrafkhan v. State of Gujarat (2012) 11 SCC 606 and Hussein Ghadially v. State of Gujarat (2014) 8 SCC 425. 6. Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent-State of Gujarat made an attempt to convince us that sanction was, in fact, granted under Section 20A (1). According to him, there was an error in the order dated 08.04.1994 which m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proval under Section 20A (1) was not accorded by the competent authority was accepted by Mr. Adhyaru who appeared for the State of Gujarat in that case. Mr.Adhyaru s submission in Izharul Haq Abdul Hamid Shaikh s case that though the order of approval wrongly mentioned Section 20A(2) it was actually an order under Section 20A(1), was not accepted. Mr. Adhyaru raised the same point again before us relying on order dated 08.03.1994. We permitted the Senior Counsel to read out the order dated 08.03.1994 but we are not convinced that it was passed under Section 20A(1) and not under Section 20A(2). 9. It is no more res integra that infraction of Section 20A (1) of the TADA Act would vitiate the entire proceedings and result in acquittal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TADA, have been released on bail on the ground that they have been in jail for a long period of time and there was no likelihood of the completion of the trial at the earliest. (See: Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 9 SCC 252 and Babba v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569). 12. Though the Appellant is involved in serious offences and has absconded for a period of 10 years before he was arrested in 2004, we see no reason to confine him to jail as he has already suffered more than 12 years in custody and the trial may not be completed in the near future. Taking note of the above, we grant relief of bail to the Appellant subject to the following conditions: a. The Appellant will furnish a bail bond in the sum of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
