Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Monday, refused bail to an individual identified as an active member of the media cell of the Indian Mujahideen. The case stemmed from emails dispatched by this terrorist group to various media outlets in Pakistan and India, titled ‘Message of Death’.

“The guilt of accused is required to be proved during trial, however, in light of the fact that appellant, who is admittedly a qualified Computer Engineer, and has been alleged to be an active member of Media Cell of Indian Mujahideen and as a part of large conspiracy, had prepared the text and content of terror mail sent in the name of Indian Mujahideen and for this purpose, he had visited Mumbai and purchased laptops; he has been identified by the shop owner (PW-231) from where the said laptops were purchased and used for sending the warning email and besides the aforesaid two laptops”, the bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shalinder Kaur held. 

The emails asserted responsibility for imminent bomb attacks, stated to occur precisely 5 minutes after email dispatch. They included a slide displaying past bombings in India and a PDF file claiming responsibility for current and past bomb attacks in Rajasthan and Gujarat. The group challenged the Indian Government, affirming its capacity to execute attacks and issuing threats of further violence.

Following these bomb blasts in Delhi on September 13, 2008, five cases were registered at different police stations in New Delhi. Subsequently, five supplementary charge sheets were filed against 14 accused individuals. The prosecution called upon 610 witnesses, and the presentation of prosecution evidence commenced on May 31, 2011.

The appellant, represented by Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, applied for bail to the Trial Court but was denied. Dissatisfied, he filed another bail application before this Court, which was withdrawn. Senior Advocate Ramakrishnan argued that the appellant was acquitted from the trial related to the 2008 Ahmadabad bomb blast on February 8, 2022, based on evidence akin to that in this case. Subsequently, the appellant lodged his second bail application, however, as there was prima facie evidence against him, he was barred from bail.

Senior Advocate Ramakrishnan contended that the appellant had spent 13 years in continuous judicial custody and had been acquitted by the Ahmadabad Sessions Court. Therefore, there was no risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

However, Additional Public Prosecutor Ritesh Kumar Bahri filed a Status Report indicating that key conspirators of the Delhi bomb blast were still at large, potentially sheltered in Pakistan. He contended that if the appellant is released on bail it might result in his absconding or engaging in similar offenses again with their assistance. 

APP underscored that the trial was progressing swiftly, with hearings convened every working Saturday to expedite the proceedings. Reference was made to a Supreme Court decision to argue that mere delay in the trial could not justify granting bail, particularly in cases involving grave offenses.

The bench initially observed, “grant of bail, though discretionary in nature, yet such exercise cannot be arbitrary and in heinous nature of crime warrant more caution”.

The bench reiterated that mere delay in the trial cannot serve as justification for granting bail, particularly in cases involving serious offenses. The court acknowledged that the trial was progressing swiftly and there existed prima facie evidence against the appellant.

In alignment with the trial court's assessment, taking into account the gravity and severity of the accusations and the statutory restriction under Section 43 D(5) of UAPA, the court rejected the appellant's bail petition. However, it ensured that the trial would be convened every Saturday to facilitate prompt adjudication.

Case Title: Mubeen Kadar Shaikh v State Of Nct Of Delhi (2024:DHC:3357-DB)