ABDUL JABBAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant prays for suspension of his sentence during the pendency of the appeal. He has been convicted by the Trial Court under Section 4A and 4 -B of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant -petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. I have gone through the records.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the disposal of this application, briefly stated, are that the appellant and his co -accused were arrested along with some explosive Substances on the basis of an information received by Special Cell of Delhi Police that the underworld gangsters with the help of terrorists belonging to JKLF were trying to hit various places in Punjab and Delhi. They intended to cause bomb blasts at different places with a view to threaten the unity and sovereignty of India. Information was developed and on 21.5.2001 a raiding party was organised in which one public witness was also joined. At about 8.30 P.M. a Red Maruti Car entered the parking lot of Bangla Sahib Gurdwara. Two persons including the appellant herein came out from Car and started moving towards main road of Baba Kharak Singh Marg. The third accused was waiting to whom they handed over two packets containing explosive. The raiding party apprehended all the three and found that in both the packets, including the one which was handed over by the appellant to his co -accused, PETN, an explosive, and other articles used for manufacturing bombs were there. They were arrested, put to trial and ultimately convicted by the learned Trial Judge vide the judgment under appeal.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence on the ground that the appellant has been held to be guilty of a serious offence and in case he is released on bail he may flee from justice and abscond to avoid undergoing imprisonment. It is also argued that the learned Trial Judge has properly discussed the statement of the public witness PW 7 and the statements of the remaining prosecution witnesses who deposed about the recovery of the explosive from the appellant and returned a finding of guilt against the appellant.