MOHAMMED ALLIMUDDIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these appeals, both the appellants have been arrested in the same crime no. 27/2002, u'/ss. 363,368,143,147,148, 149 and 121 of the Indian Penal Code r/w. sections 3/25 of the Arms Act and section 3 (3) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as "pota")- Both the appellants were arrested on 12. 6. 2002. The appellant Ahmed Abdul Nayeem in criminal appeal no. 543/2002 had filed a writ petition for quashing the F. I. R. The said writ petition no. 255/2002 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19. 9. 2002.

(2.) ACCORDING to the appellants, period of 90 days from the date of their arrest, excluding the date of arrest, was over on 10. 9. 2002. Accordingly, both the appellants filed bail applications before the Designated special Court on 11. 9. 2002. The learned A. P. P was asked to file reply on the same, which was filed on 11. 9:2002 itself opposing it and on 12. 9. 2002, the Public Prosecutor filed report u/s. 49 (2) of POTA for extension of period of detention of the appellants upto 180 days. On 12. 9. 2002, the investigating officer also filed an application seeking magisterial custody remand of the appellants from 12. 9. 2002 to 19. 9. 2002. The Designated Court disposed of the bail applications, as also the application for Magisterial custody remand from 12. 9. 2002 to 19. 9. 2002 filed by the investigating officer and the report filed by the Public Prosecutor by two separate orders. The bail applications of the appellants were rejected. The applications filed by the investigating officer for extension of Magisterial custody remand from 12. 9. 2002 to 19. 9. 2002 was granted. The report filed by the Public Prosecutor was partly allowed.

(3.) THE appellants have come in the appeal against the said orders in terms of section 34 (4) of POTA. In criminal appeal no. 522/2002, in addition to challenge to refusal of bail, the appellant also challenged extension granted by order dated 12th September, 2002. In criminal appeal no. 543/2002, though the appellant had not, initially, challenged the order of extension dated 12th September, 2002, yet leave was sought to add grounds to take the said challenge as well, which was allowed.