Bombay HC quashes denial of bail to terror accused Areeb Majeed but restores his bail plea before special UAPA court
MUMBAI: In part relief to Kalyan resident Areeb Majeed facing trial under an anti-terror law, Bombay high court on Tuesday quashed and set aside a September 2019 rejection of his bail plea by a special trial court in Mumbai. The HC however restored the bail plea for a fresh hearing by the trial court after he argued that his submissions of there being a change in circumstance with witnesses turning hostile, was not considered.
A bench of Justices BP Dharmadhikari and Nitin Borkar said it was partly allowing his appeal against the rejection of his bail plea but directed the special trial court under Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to decide it afresh from February 10, preferably within six weeks.
The HC bench observed there in the last five years since his arrest in November 2014, 42 prosecution witnesses have been examined while the prosecution said there are 200-odd witnesses. The bench also noted that 27-year-old Majeed has been behind bars since his arrest on November 28, 2014.
Majeed argued in person before the HC bench. His parents were in the court. He said that the special trial court had rejected his bail plea –filed on the basis of change in circumstances—after considering witnesses statements in the chargesheet, even though several of these witnesses had deposed and 'turned hostile' during trial. He also argued that there were 'contradictory' findings made by the special trial judge while dealing with his ‘change in circumstance’ arguments over ‘slow pace of trial.’
A ‘change in circumstance’ in a case proceeding allows a court to consider a new bail plea even after rejecting pleas made earlier.
The trial court order observed that Majeed did not bring anything on record to show "any deviation of prosecution in deposition of witnesses examined from the chargesheet and statements recorded during investigation." Trial court essentially held that it was not Majeed’s case that there was any deviation in witness statements and deposition, though his case is that he argued it.
The HC agreed with additional solicitor general Anil Singh and Aditya Thakkar who appeared for National Investigation Agency (NIA) that Majeed cannot argue before the high court points which he says he had made before the trial court but which that court has not considered while deciding his bail plea. Singh cited a Supreme Court ruling of 2018 to show that the accused can file a review before the trial court in such a case.
But that in this case considering that since there were 200 witnesses to be examined and only 42 were examined so far, it would be fair to send his bail plea for a fresh hearing, the HC reckoned.
Majeed is accused of having indulged in alleged terrorist activities in Iraq between May and November 2014 by joining ISIL, and likely to commit them in India.
Majeed’s defence, is that that "he was, infact, brought back to India with all necessary help by the NIA officers in consultation with his father, and that, those officers… were also present at the airport at the time of arrival" at the Mumbai airport.
Majeed argued that the trial court ought to have considered that 12 witnesses militating against the statements in chargesheet, constitutes a change in circumstance.
The trial court however, while rejecting his plea stated, "the present bail application is based on grounds raised on basis of chargesheet and prosecution statements of witnesses recorded during investigation and not on deposition of witnesses before court…hence accused has not succeeded to prove change in circumstance."
A bench of Justices BP Dharmadhikari and Nitin Borkar said it was partly allowing his appeal against the rejection of his bail plea but directed the special trial court under Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to decide it afresh from February 10, preferably within six weeks.
The HC bench observed there in the last five years since his arrest in November 2014, 42 prosecution witnesses have been examined while the prosecution said there are 200-odd witnesses. The bench also noted that 27-year-old Majeed has been behind bars since his arrest on November 28, 2014.
Majeed argued in person before the HC bench. His parents were in the court. He said that the special trial court had rejected his bail plea –filed on the basis of change in circumstances—after considering witnesses statements in the chargesheet, even though several of these witnesses had deposed and 'turned hostile' during trial. He also argued that there were 'contradictory' findings made by the special trial judge while dealing with his ‘change in circumstance’ arguments over ‘slow pace of trial.’
A ‘change in circumstance’ in a case proceeding allows a court to consider a new bail plea even after rejecting pleas made earlier.
The trial court order observed that Majeed did not bring anything on record to show "any deviation of prosecution in deposition of witnesses examined from the chargesheet and statements recorded during investigation." Trial court essentially held that it was not Majeed’s case that there was any deviation in witness statements and deposition, though his case is that he argued it.
The HC agreed with additional solicitor general Anil Singh and Aditya Thakkar who appeared for National Investigation Agency (NIA) that Majeed cannot argue before the high court points which he says he had made before the trial court but which that court has not considered while deciding his bail plea. Singh cited a Supreme Court ruling of 2018 to show that the accused can file a review before the trial court in such a case.
But that in this case considering that since there were 200 witnesses to be examined and only 42 were examined so far, it would be fair to send his bail plea for a fresh hearing, the HC reckoned.
Majeed is accused of having indulged in alleged terrorist activities in Iraq between May and November 2014 by joining ISIL, and likely to commit them in India.
Majeed’s defence, is that that "he was, infact, brought back to India with all necessary help by the NIA officers in consultation with his father, and that, those officers… were also present at the airport at the time of arrival" at the Mumbai airport.
Majeed argued that the trial court ought to have considered that 12 witnesses militating against the statements in chargesheet, constitutes a change in circumstance.
The trial court however, while rejecting his plea stated, "the present bail application is based on grounds raised on basis of chargesheet and prosecution statements of witnesses recorded during investigation and not on deposition of witnesses before court…hence accused has not succeeded to prove change in circumstance."
Get the app