Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the bail application of a Senior Police Inspector accused in the Mansukh Hiran murder case and explosives conspiracy. The Court found sufficient prima facie evidence of his involvement and held that the stringent conditions for bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) were not met. The Court relied on established precedents concerning UAPA and criminal conspiracy, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations and their potential impact on public safety.
Facts
Explosives Incident and Hiran’s Murder:
- On February 25, 2021, a Scorpio vehicle laden with 20 gelatin sticks and a threat note was abandoned near Mukesh Ambani’s residence, Antilia.
- The vehicle owner, Mansukh Hiran, reported it stolen on February 18, 2021. His body was later found in Mumbra Creek on March 5, 2021.
Role of the Appellant:
- The appellant, a Senior Police Inspector, was accused of working with co-conspirators, including Sachin Waze and Pradeep Sharma, to eliminate Hiran and cover up the explosives case.
- Specific allegations included:
- Using a fake identity (“Inspector Tawade”) to lure Hiran.
- Arranging Hiran’s abduction and facilitating his murder.
- Tampering with evidence, including altering vehicle registrations and deleting digital records.
NIA Charges:
- The appellant was charged under IPC Sections 302, 364, and 120B (murder, abduction, and criminal conspiracy) and UAPA Sections 16, 18, and 20, alleging a conspiracy to create public terror.
Issues
- Whether prima facie evidence established the appellant’s involvement in the criminal conspiracy and murder.
- Whether the appellant satisfied the stringent bail conditions under UAPA.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Absence of Direct Evidence:
- The appellant contended that no direct evidence, such as recoveries or forensic proof, linked him to the crime.
- Routine Interactions:
- Claimed that his interactions with co-accused were professional and not indicative of collusion.
- Credibility of Evidence:
- Challenged the reliability of circumstantial evidence and witness statements presented by the prosecution.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Prima Facie Involvement:
- The prosecution presented call detail records (CDRs), CCTV footage, and witness testimonies demonstrating the appellant’s role in planning and executing the conspiracy.
- Tampering with Evidence:
- Alleged that the appellant deliberately misled investigators and destroyed incriminating records to conceal his involvement.
- Public Safety Concerns:
- Emphasized the gravity of the allegations and the appellant’s active role in a conspiracy designed to create public fear.
Analysis of the Law
- UAPA and Bail Conditions:
- The Court referred to National Investigation Agency vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) to underline that bail under UAPA requires the accused to demonstrate the absence of prima facie evidence against them.
- Highlighted the stringent parameters for granting bail under anti-terror laws.
- Role of Circumstantial Evidence:
- Reiterated that circumstantial evidence, when credible and corroborative, is sufficient to establish prima facie involvement in conspiracy cases.
Precedent Analysis
- National Investigation Agency vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019):
- Relied upon to affirm the standard of prima facie satisfaction required for bail under UAPA.
- Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement (2023):
- Cited to assert that parity in bail considerations does not apply when specific roles are attributed to different accused persons.
- Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr.:
- Referred to underline that mere routine interactions cannot negate circumstantial evidence of conspiracy.
Court’s Reasoning
- Prima Facie Evidence:
- The Court found substantial circumstantial evidence, including CDRs, CCTV footage, and witness statements, linking the appellant to the crime.
- Public Safety and Trust:
- Emphasized the importance of maintaining public trust in the judiciary and law enforcement, particularly in high-profile cases.
- Failure to Rebut Evidence:
- The appellant failed to provide credible explanations to rebut the prosecution’s prima facie case.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court denied bail, affirming the appellant’s prima facie involvement in the conspiracy and murder under IPC and UAPA provisions. It underscored the seriousness of the charges and the need to safeguard public safety while ensuring a fair trial.