AATIF NASIR MULLA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant -original accused no. 2 and learned P. P. for the state.

(2.) APPELLANT - Accused is one of the accused in pota Special Case No. 2 of 2003 pending before the special Court, Mumbai. He filed an application for bail No. 2 of 2004. There were two other Misc. Applications. All of them were heard and decided by the Special Court on 15. 12. 2004 and the application were rejected. Therefore, this Appeal under the provisions of The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as "pota Act" ).

(3.) THE charge against the accused along with others, is that there was a criminal conspiracy to cause bomb blast, which, in fact, occurred at mulund, Vile Parle and Mumbai Central pursuant to the conspiracy. According to Mr. Agarwal, the only evidence against the accused that is collected by the prosecution is confessional statement of the co-accused and recovery of AK-56. Mr. Agarwal contended that the provisions of bail in offence under POTA have been diluted by the Supreme Court in different judgments, which he relied upon. Secondly, he also contended that the Supreme Court has now clearly laid down that the confessional statement of one accused cannot be used against other, and, therefore, that piece of evidence, heavily relied upon by the prosecution, cannot be used, at all, against the accused.