[Narendra Modi assassination plot] Bombay High Court grants bail to convict in 2006 Aurangabad arms haul

Merely attending a meeting of militants or being exhorted to join Jihad is not sufficient to hold that the concerned person was willing to play a major role in Jihad, the Bombay High Court observed on Friday while granting bail to a person convicted in the 2006 Aurangabad arms haul case [Bilal Ahmed Abdul Razaq vs State of Maharashtra]. .The case had become famous after the special judge who had conducted the trial and convicted seven accused in 2016, had held in his judgment that the seven were part of a larger conspiracy to kill Narendra Modi who was then the Chief Minister of Gujarat.In its bail order pronounced on Friday, a division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Virendrasingh Bisht said though there were confessional statements of other co-accused against the appellant Bilal Ahmed Abdul Razaq that he was involved in the common thought process/conspiracy to strike Jihad, the same will not be sufficient in the absence of other convincing evidence."The special court has also stated in its July 28, 2016, judgment that the appellant accompanied other accused to Kashimr to meet Juned (a Pakistani national and member of Lashkar-e-Taiba), where he was introduced to other militants. In our considered opinion merely because he attended the meetings or for that matter he was exhorted to join Jihad that by itself cannot be termed as a readiness or willingness on his part to play a major role in Jihad, particularly when there is no prima-facie cogent and convincing evidence against him. No incriminating act is imputed against him in the said confessional statement," the bench held.The accused had been convicted by special judge under MCOC Act for offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), Explosive Substances Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2016..As per the prosecution case, the State Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) had received secret information about huge amount of arms and ammunition loaded in a jeep to be taken to Aurangabad for a terror attack. The jeep was intercepted and the main accused were arrested. They later gave confessional statements to the anti terror agency implicating the present appellant.The special judge after analysing the confessional statements had concluded that the arms, ammunition and explosives recovered were to be used to kill the then Chief Minister of Gujarat Narendra Modi and Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Praveen Togadia.It was further held by the special judge prime accused Mohammad Amer Shakil Ahmed Shaikh along with other accused was sharing common thought process for striking Jihad since 1999 and all of them were deeply involved in larger conspiracy to strike terror against India and Hindus and were calling and propagating it as Jihad. These men had support of the Lashker-e-Taiba and they were constantly in contact with accused Juned, a Pakistani national and member of LeT..However, the High Court noted from the record, that the appellant was not convicted under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and thus the confessional statements recorded under Section 18 of the act, against the appellant, were insignificant."Thus, the observations of the Special Judge based on the said confessional statement as noted by him in his judgement prima-facie appears to be not founded on material on record" the bench observed..Further, the judges noted that the special court had observed that the call data records (CDR) of the appellant weren't placed on record."On the one hand, the Special Judge finds that the appellant's CDR is not produced while on the other hand, contrarily holds that the conversation between him and a co-accused (for procuring arms) was duly proved on the basis of phone call, which phone call the Special Judge was referring to is not made clear. Be that as it may, the fact remains that no CDR was produced before the Special Judge and therefore, an adverse inference should necessarily find its way to the record," the bench held.Accordingly, the judges held that the appellant has made out a good case for grant of bail and suspension of his sentences, pending the hearing and final disposal of his appeal."It has to be taken into consideration that the appellant is in jail since more than 16 years and therefore, this material aspect will have to be borne in mind. We are, therefore, inclined to grant the present application," the bench said..Advocates Mubin Solkar, Aamin Sopariwala and Tahera Qureshi appeared for the appellant.Special Public Prosecutor Raja Thakare, Senior Advocate and advocate Siddharth Jagushte represented the State.