IN the HIGH COURT of JUDICATURE at MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: of 2020 DISTRICT: MUMBAI Surandra P
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: OF 2020 DISTRICT: MUMBAI Surandra P. Gadling ) … Applicant V/s NIA ) …Respondents INDEX Sl.No. Particulars Page No’s 1. Synopsis A-C 2. Memo of Application 1-9 3. Exhibit A 10-14 Copy of application for temporary bail 4. Exhibit B 15-16 Reply of Prosecution 5. Exhibit C 17-20 Copy of Death Certificate 6. Exhibit D 21-24 Impugned Order, dated 11/09/2020 6. Vakalatnama 25 Mumbai Dated : 22/09/2020 Advocate for Appellant 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: OF 2020 DISTRICT: MUMBAI Surandra P. Gadling ) … Appellant V/s NIA ) …Respondents SYNOPSIS Sl.No. Date Particulars 1. 31/12/2017 Alleged incident ought to have taken place within the jurisdiction of Vishrambaug Police Station 2. 08.01.2018 FIR registered by the Vishrambaug Police Station 3. 28.08.2019 Appellant arrested. 4. Charge sheet filed against Appellant and others for offence under Sections 121, 121A, 124A, 153A, 505(1)(b),117, 120B r/w 34 IPC, 1860 and under Section 3 13,16,17,18,18B, 20, 38, 39, & 40 of the Unlawful Activities Protection Act. 5. 06.11.2018 Bail Application of the Appellant rejected by Order passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. 6. A Bail application filed by the Appellant in High Court bearing No.: 3603/2020 is pending. 7. 15.08.2020 Appellant’s mother expired at Nagpur 8. 17.089.2020 Appellant filed a bail application before the Learned Special Judge, NIA, Mumbai 9. 11.09.2020 Bail plea of the Appellant for temporary bail was rejected. POINTS TO BE URGED: Whether the Appellant is entitled for bail for reasons urged in Memo of Bail Application. ACTS TO BE RELIED UPON a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 b) Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 4 c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 JUDGEMENTS TO BE RELIED UPON At present none. Mumbai Dated : 22/09/2020 Advocate for Appellantt 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: OF 2020 DISTRICT: MUMBAI IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 21(4) OF NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ACT, 2008 ARISING FROM ORDER DATED 11.09/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SPECIAL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, GREATER BOMBAY BY WHICH THE APPLICATION FOR BAIL OF THE APPELLANT WAS REJECTED IN CRIMINAL CASE BEARING NIA SPECIAL CASE NO.:414/2020 CHARGE : SECTIONS 121, 121-A, 124-A, 153-A, 505 (1) (B), 117, 120- B R/W 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTIONS 13, 16, 17, 18, 18-B, 20, 38, 39, 40 OF THE 6 UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT. Surendra Pundalik Gadling ) Aged about 51 Years, having address at ) Flat No 79, Misal Layout Bhim Chowk, ) jadiptka, Napur . ) … Appellant V/s Senior Inspector of Police, ) National Investigation Agency ) …Respondents HUMBLE APPLICATION OF BAIL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ABOVENAMED MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1. Being aggrieved with Order, dated 11.09.2020 passed by the Learned Special Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai in NIA Special Case No.: 414/2020 the Appellant prefers the present Appeal as provided under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. By the said Order the Application of the Appellant for temporary bail was rejected 2. The Appellant along with 10 others face trial for offence sections 121, 121-A, 124-A, 153-A, 505 (1) (b), 117, 120-B r/w 7 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18-B, 20, 38, 39, 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. 3. The Appellant / Accused state that Sessions Case, bearing N.I.A Special Case No.: 414/2020 arises out of transfer of ATS Special Case No. 01/2018 from the files of Learned Special Judge, Pune. The said ATS Special Case No. 01/2018 arises from C.R. No.4/2018 registered by the Vishrambaug Police Station. On 22.01.2018, the Commissioner of Police, Pune City, passed Orders withdrawing the investigation in C. R. No. 4/2018 of Vishrambaug P.S. from Senior P. I., Vishrambaug PS and handing it over to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Swargate Division, Pune City, the Respondent No.1. 4. Infact on 03.01.2018, one Akshay Bhikad made a complaint at the Vishrambaug P.S. against speakers at the Elgar Parishad, Gujarat MLA Jignesh Mevani and Delhi student Umar Khalid alleging that the programme had led to violence on 01.01.2018 at Bhima–Koregaon, around 40 kms away from the site of the Elgaar Parishad of 31.12.2017. It was this complaint, which was registered as F.I.R. / C. R. No. 2/2018 under sections 153- A, 505 (1)(b) and 117 IPC. Thereafter a second FIR dated 08.01.2018 by one Tushar Damgurde was registered as C.R. 8 No. 4/2018 of Vishrambaug PS under Sections 153-A, 505 (1) (b), 11, 34 of IPC. 5. After filing charge sheet by the concerned Police Station, ie ACP, Vishrambaug Police Station, the Learned Special Judge took cognizance of offence under offence Sections 121, 121-A, 124-A, 153-A, 505 (1) (b), 117, 120-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18 B, 20, 38, 39, 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and amended act 2008 & 2012, against the present Appellant on 15.11.2018 and against few others on 21.02.2019. The charge sheet is voluminous and the Appellant craves leave to refer to and rely upon the charge sheet as and when necessary and produced. 6. An application for bail filed by the Appellant before the Learned Sessions Judge, Pune, before NIA took over, was rejected by Order, dated 06.11.2019 and a bail application bearing No.: 3603/2019 has been filed by the Applicant, which is pending before this Hon’ble High Court. 7. While this was the position and the proceedings kept for framing charge before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, the Respondent No.: 1 intervened by filing an application on 29.01.2020 in the court of Learned Special and Additional Sessions Judge, Pune and prayed for transfer of entire record 9 and proceedings of Special Case ATS Case No.: 1/2018 from the files of the Learned Special and Additional Sessions Judge, Pune to a Special Court constituted under NIA Act to Mumbai. 8. By Order, dated 14.02.2020 the Learned Special and Additional Sessions Judge, Pune was pleased to allow the application of the Respondent and the proceedings now stand transferred to the court of Learned Special and Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai 9. The Accused was arrested in the above case on 06.06.2018 and has been in custody since then. Earlier these proceedings were investigated by the ACP Swar Gate Police Station and charge sheet was filed in the Court of Learned Special Judge, Pune vide Special case (ATS) No.: 1/2018. 10. As the mother of the Appellant expired on 15.08.2020, the Appellant through his counsel made an application for bail on 17.08.2020, copy of which is annexed herewith and marked EXHIBIT “A”. Thereafter the Prosecution filed their reply on 21.08.2020, copy of which is annexed herewith and marked EXHIBIT “B”. The Appellant thereafter also submitted Death Certificate of the Appellant’s mother, copy of which is also annexed herewith and marked EXHIBIT “C” 10 11. By order, dated 11/09/2020, as stated above, the plea of the Appellant for grant of temporary on ground that his mother expired on 15/08/2020 and that he was required to join family members for last rituals was rejected. Copy of the said Order is annexed herewith and marked EXHIBIT “D” and hence the Appellant approaches this Hon’ble Court for temporary bail on the following amongst other grounds: a. The Order passed by the Learned Special Judge is bad in law and erroneous; b. In the first instance it ought to have been appreciated by the Learned Special Judge that the plea of the Appellant was only for temporary bail for a period of 3 weeks and it was ohn the ground that the Appellant’s mother had expired on 15.08.2020 and the entire family wanted to meet or organize a bereavement gathering. c. The Court ought to have appreciated that due to COVID it has become difficult to contact one another and in such a situation insisting for documentary proof to show that bereavement was organized is totally erroneous; d. At the most the Learned Special Court could have considered the plea of the Appellant for a lesser period, if not inclined for a period of 3 weeks; 11 e. The observations of the Learned Special Judge that offence is serious is totally misplaced. If that was the issue, the Court ought to have appreciated the fact that while the matter was kept for framing charge in December, 2019, the Respondent took over and in February, 2020 the matter was transferred to the Learned Special Court, Mumbai and since February, 2020 the Respondent in still investigating. In April, they arrested 2 Accused. Again in July, 2020 they arrested another Accused in mid- August, 2020 they arrested another 3 accused and thus there is no chance that even charge would be framed in near future; f. So this aspect also ought to have been considered and what was sought was a temporary bail to meet the family so that the members could share the grief on account of the loss of the mother of the Appellant; g.