Idrishan Yakubkhan Pathan Vs. State of Gujarat Thr. Public Prosecutor  Insc 773 (27
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 943 OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1377 of 2007)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of
the Gujarat High Court dismissing the appeal filed under Section 34(1) (4) of
the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2000 (in short the 'POTA'). There seems to be
some confusion about the factual position and therefore the details are not
necessary to be noted.
3. Undisputedly, the challenge before the High Court was to the order dated
7.7.2004 passed by the Designated Judge, Special Court (POTA) Ahmedabad. There
were two proceedings initiated against the appellant. The first was Pota Case
No. 08 of 2003 arising out of complaints, namely, I.C.R. No. 184 of 2002
registered at Kagdapith Police Station, I.C.R. No. 116 of 2002 registered at
Vejalpur Police Station and I.C.R. No. 244 of 2002 registered at Satellite
Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 307, 337, 286 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') read with Sections 3, 4 &
6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (in short the 'Explosive Act') and under
Sections 3(3), 4,20, 21(2)(b) and 22(3) of the POTA. It is to be noted that two
appeals were filed by the appellant i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos.1287 of 2004 and
1288 of 2004. The appellant has been acquitted from the charges leveled against
him in POTA Case No.8 of 2003. So far as the prayer for bail in POTA Case No.12
of 2003 is concerned, certain observations were made by the Court while
dismissing Criminal appeal No. 1287 of 2004 on 21.9.2004. The High Court noted
that because of acquittal in POTA Case No.8 of 2003 wherein further revival in
that case the appeal was infructuous. Obviously, the same relates to Criminal
Appeal No. 1287 of 2004. So far as the Criminal appeal No.1288 of 2004 is
concerned, the same relates to the POTA Case No.12 of 2003. The High Court was
therefore not justified in holding that the matter was concluded for various
reasons in view of the observations made in the appeal relating to POTA Case
No.8 of 2003.
4. A perusal of the documents on record shows that Criminal Appeal No.1288
of 2004 related to POTA Case No.12 of 2003. Whether any relief can be granted
by the concerned Court in that POTA case was not considered. The confusion
arose before the High Court relating to the case numbers.
There is no dispute that Criminal Appeal No.1288 of 2004 before the High
Court related to POTA Case No.12 of 2003. It appears that the High Court
permitted the appellant to take a proper proceeding seeking his release on bail
so far as POTA Case No.12 of 2003 is concerned. The High Court apparently failed
to notice that Criminal Appeal No.1288 of 2004 related to POTA Case No.12 of
2003. In the circumstances we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter
relating to Criminal Appeal No.1288 of 2004 to the High Court to consider the
matter afresh in accordance with law.
5. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of
the case. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.