SAZID Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This misc. criminal case has been instituted on first application for bail under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 filed on behalf of petitioner Sazid @ Guddu in Crime No. 01/2014 registered by P.S. A.T.S./ S.T.F. Bhopal, District Bhopal under Sections 307, 34, 120-B, 107 and 115 of the I.P.C., Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 Sections 3, 10, 13, 13(1) (2), 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 38, and 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 and Section 3/4/5/6 of Explosive Substances Act.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, petitioner Sazid had been a member of Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) since the year 2007, which has been banned by Union of India. He was also associated with other members of SIMI and was in regular telephonic contact with them. He used to convene meetings of SIMI at his house. He had harboured terrorist Salik in his house. He had conducted reconnaissance of Ahmadabad Jail along with another member of SIMI named Juber. He had gone to Sholapur along with co-accused Irfan Nagori to deliver a consignment of explosive, pistols and cartridges etc. He had harboured leader of SIMI namely Abu Faisal at his residence and called a meeting of SIMI on that occasion.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though petitioner Sazid is said to have been a member of SIMI since the year 2007; no literature relating to SIMI was seized from his possession. Though, he has been named by Co-accused persons as being in possession of explosive substances belonging to SIMI, no incriminating article has been seized from his possession. There is nothing against him on record apart from disclosure statements made by Co-accused persons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which are not admissible against him and his own disclosure statement pursuant whereof nothing has been seized. He had voluntarily surrendered to S.T.F. The petitioner has been in custody since 30.01.2014. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The conclusion of trial would still take a long time; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail. He has placed reliance upon orders passed by this Court in the cases of Rakeeb Khan v. State, order dated 31.10.2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 15835/2014 , Javed Ahmad v. State, order dated 26-2-2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 13216/2013 , Misbahuddin v. State, order dated 25-2013, passed in M.Cr.C. No. 11801/2012 and Mohommed Rashid v. State, order dated 16-12-2014, passed in M.Cr.C. No. 17348/2014 etc.