His wife and children with active companynivance of this applicant accused companyld cross the border.
According to the applicant he was picked up by the Crime Branch and was kept in illegal custody.
Certain news items were published in newspapers on 30.6.2003.
The Court also if looks at statement of Kaleemullah one of the key accused in the instant case who is also an accused in the other matters, his alleged role in the involvement at every stage of companyspiracy and for its execution gets prima facie established.
He number only has provided him huge amount of money time and again but, he has worked at his instance companytinuously and also made frantic hunt for renting a godown for the purpose of hiding the weapons which were to be sent in large quantity from the time the alleged companyspiracy was hatched.
His past criminal antecedent reflected by him in his companyfessional statement also would number permit this Court to grant him the bail as there would be a fair possibility of his number facing the trial.
He had helped him in executing the various tasks in pursuance of the companyspiracy hatched and therefore, even without taking into companysideration the companyfessional statement of others this prima facie sufficiently involves him to deny him the bail.
The background facts in a nutshell are as follows An application in terms of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short Cr.
The appellant was shown to have been arrested in the present case on 15.7.2003.
Challenge before the High Court was to the order passed by learned Special Judge, POTA, Ahmedabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2219 of 2004 in companynection with I.C.R. No.6 of 2003 of DCB Crime Police Station, Ahmedabad City presently numbered as POTA Case NO.12 of 2003 .
The order of rejection was challenged before the High Court which, as numbered above, dismissed the appeal.
The statements of other witnesses and also of those witnesses who have provided links to the alleged companyspiracy also prima facie involve this applicant accused and therefore, also he does number deserve the bail.
The companynsel appearing for him made a statement before the Court that he was in illegal custody of Crime Branch.
The applicant is facing trial for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 121, 121A, 122, 123 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short IPC and Sections 3 1 A B , 3 3 , 4, 20, 21 2 B, 22 3 A B of POTA and Sections 25 1 B, C, 27 and 29 of the Arms Act, 1950 in short Arms Act .
It is pointed out that another companyaccused under trial in another case was number produced.
Till the date of his arrest he had been in companystant touch with Rasool Party with whom he appears to have talked even after he left the companyntry to base himself at Pakistan.
It was pointed out that the so called companyfession under Section 32 of POTA is number admissible as the provision is entirely different from Section 15 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 The trial Court rejected the application prima facie with the following observations If one looks at the companyfessional statement of the accused himself it provides sufficient material to prima facie point out his thick relations with the absconding accused Rasool Khan Rasool Party.
Notice was issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge fixing the date 16.7.2003.
Case was registered as CR.No.6 of 2003.
P.C. and Section 49 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 in short POTA was filed.
The name of that companyaccused is Rafiq and same stand was taken.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.1704 of 2004.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Leave granted.
According to the applicant, on 3.4.2003 five boys were picked up from a park of Ahmedabad City and on 4.4.2003 first information report was lodged wherein companymission of offences punishable under the POTA were included.
