R.P. GOYAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 34(4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (for short 'the POTA') is directed against the order, dated 29 March 2004, passed by Special Judge, POTA, New Delhi, dismissing the application filed by the appellant for grant of bail in a case arising out of FIR No. 70/2003 dated 30 August 2003 under Section 3/4/5/20/21 of the POTA and Sections 120 -B/121/121A/122/123 IPC read with Sections 4/5 of Explosives Substances Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts, germane to the present appeal are as follows:

(3.) IT is strenuously urged by Mr. Tulsi that even if the prosecution story, contained in the chargesheet against the appellant, is accepted as true, still it does not constitute an offence falling within the purview of definition of "terrorist act" as defined under Section 2(g) of the POTA. It is asserted that even assuming, but not admitting, that the appellant had delivered money to Noor Mohd. Tantray, a mere delivery of money to him would not bring the case of the appellant within the ambit of Section 22 of the POTA, as no knowledge about the money being used for the purposes of terrorism, a condition precedent to book a person under the said Section has been attributed to him. In support of the contention learned counsel has referred us to the two alleged confessional statements of Noor Mohd. Tantray and of the appellant.