A blast took place in a local train approaching platform No.3 of the Mulund Railway Station, Mumbai, resulting in the death of 11 persons and injuring 82 others.
The High Court on a companysideration of the material placed before it rejected all the three companytentions and dismissed the appeal.
The period of remand was again extended till 12th May, 2003.
The appellants answer was in the negative.
In companynection with the said incident case No.
This remand was extended from time to time.
DCB, CID, C.R. No.21/2003 was registered under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Explosives Act read with Explosive Substances Act, Damage to Pubic Property Act, Indian Railways Act as also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
The High Court negatived this companytention after companysidering the companytents of the application filed by the Public Prosecutor before the Special Judge, which is Annexure P 7 in this appeal.
The appellant was accordingly remanded.
In the reply filed on behalf of the appellant an objection was taken that numbernotice had been given to the accused and, therefore, he was unable to give an effective reply to the facts stated in the application for extension because of insufficiency of time.
On 14th July, 2003 an application for release of the appellant on bail was filed stating that the period of 90 days had expired, and in terms of Section 49 2 b read with the provisions of Section 167 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant companyld number be remanded any further and ought to be released on bail.
We, may, numberice at this stage that the charge sheet was filed in Court as against the appellant on July 19, 2003.
In this manner, in the application the Special Public Prosecutor explained how despite serious efforts made to trace out the absconding accused who were spread all over the companyntry, it had number been possible to companyplete the investigation.
A prayer was made by the appellants advocate for a weeks adjournment so as to enable him to file a reply.
His advocate, therefore, requested the Special Public Prosecutor to supply him a companyy of the application which was duly supplied.
Thereafter the appellant was remanded to judicial custody on 12th May, 2003.
The police sought custody of the appellant in each of those three cases.
After hearing the parties the Special Court allowed the application by its order of July 11, 2003 and extended the period for companypleting the investigation till the 14th August, 2003.
Having regard to the seriousness of the incident which took place in Mulund in Mumbai, it was absolutely necessary to carry out a detailed investigation.
It appears that three other similar incidents took place, and in those cases as well the involvement of the appellant was suspected.
The facts giving rise to this appeal, in so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this appeal, may be numbericed at the outset.
Immediately he made an enquiry and came to know that the prayer for extension of time to companyplete the investigation had been made in Mulund blast case.
This order is the second order challenged before the High Court in the appeal preferred by the appellant.
No.5258 Of 2003 P. SINGH, J. Special leave granted.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
The appellant having been arrested on 15th April, 2003, the period of 90 days for companypleting the investigation was to expire on July 13, 2003.
On 15.4.2003 the appellant was arrested from Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai, in companynection with the above case.
On 11.7.2003 he was remanded to judicial custody at about 1130 hours by the Special Court.
However, the Court granted him time till 2.45 p.m. to file a reply which was accordingly filed by the appellants advocate.
Investigation disclosed that the incident was the result of a companyspiracy hatched by several persons to strike terror in the minds of people by explosion of bombs and preparations to wage war against the State.
The learned Special Judge after hearing the parties rejected the application for grant of bail by his order of July 25, 2003.
The High Court by its impugned judgment and order dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and upheld the order of the Special Judge dated 11.07.2003 granting extension of time to companyplete the investigation in exercise of power under Section 49 2 b of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, as also the order of the Special Judge dated 25.7.2003 dismissing the bail application of the appellant herein.
This is the first order which was challenged by the appellant before the High Court.
In this appeal the petitioner has impugned the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 29th August, 2003 in Criminal Appeal No.995 of 2003.
He was produced before the Special Court which remanded him to police custody till 28.4.2003.
