RAGHURAJ PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal preferred under Section 34 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (for brevity 'the POTA') the defensibility and pregnability of the order dated 29 -11 -2005 passed by the Special Court under the POTA at Jabalpur in Misc. Cr. No. 3439/2005 whereby the Designated Court has declined to admit the appellant to bail has been called in question.

(2.) THE factual score as frescoed is that the house of Uday Pratap Singh, the father of the accused appellant, was raided in pursuance of execution of warrant of arrest in connection of Crime No. 93/93 under Section 2/3 of the Gangster Act pending before the learned Special Judge, Allahabad. During the raid the concerned police officer and his team found Uday Pratap Singh standing with one AK 56 rifle with black colour belt hanging on his right shoulder. On being asked to produce the licence, said Uday Pratap Singh could not produce the licence nor was he ready to divulge how he had acquired the said weapon along with the bullets. When they entered into the bedroom they found certain other articles which are impermissible to be retained under POTA. The Investigating Officer while preparing the recovery memorandum disclosed that a conspiracy was hatched to cause a massacre by killing some VIPs and there was also conspiracy to take some action against the Chief Minister. As per the said recovery memorandum statement of one Rajendra Yadav in his statement had stated that the present appellant and other co -accused Akshay Pratap Singh had bought AK -47/56 rifle and given to Uday Pratap Singh. It was alleged that after the statement was recorded he was murdered on 3 -3 -2003 and father of the deceased filed an FIR No. 16/2003 which gave rise to registration of offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 506, 120 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Hunda, Pratapgarh. Conspiracy was hatched by Uday Pratap Singh and Akshay Pratap Singh. A statement of Uday Pratap Singh was recorded which became the foundation for launching the prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of POTA against the accused person. After the case under POTA was registered the accused was arrested and while he was suffering incarceration there was change of regime and the new regime revoked the earlier order passed under POTA, by order dated 29 -8 -2003. As is discernible from the factual depiction the accused filed a review petition under Section 60 of POTA and eventually the review committee found that there was no justification to proceed against the accused under POTA and the State of U.P. was directed to release the accused persons. Th6 said order was called in question before the Apex Court the decision of which has been rendered in the case of S.K. Shukla and Ors. v. Slate of U.P. and Ors., 2005 AIR SCW 6054.

(3.) BE it placed on record while dealing with the writ petition wherein the assail was to the direction issued to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the POTA cases against the accused persons, their Lordships opined as under :