# MOHD. JALEES ANSARI AND OTHERS v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

- **Citation:** [2016] 8 S.C.R. 247
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2016
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 546 of2004
- **Bench:** Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Uday Umesh Lalit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mohd-jalees-ansari-and-others-v-central-bureau-of-investigation-31384
- **Pages:** 87

## Headnote

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987:
ss. 3, 4, 5 and 6 - Prosecution under and also under ss. 302,
307, 324, 326 and 436 of !PC; ss. 3 and 4 of Explosive Substance
Act, 1908; s.9B of Explosives Act, 1884; ss. !50 and 151 of Railways
Act,1989 and s.4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,
1984; all rlw s. 120-B !PC - Of 16 accused- For serial bomb-blast
in different trains - Case registered by CBI - Confessional
statements of the accused recorded - Confessions of A-1, A-5, A-8,
A-9, A-JO, A-11 and A-13 were recorded in crimes other than the
present cases - A-6 since escaped from custody, his case was
separated - Designated Court convir!f..ed A-1 to A-5 and A-7 to A16 - A-12 since was found to be a juvenile, his case was also
separated - Appeal by A-1 to A-5, A-7 to A-11 and A-13 to A-16 -
Held: The confessional statements of A"l, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-7, A-14,
A-15 and A-16 are admissible in lmv - Their statements are further
corroborated by the confessions of other co-accused - Therefore,
the prosecution case is established against them and hence their
conviction affirmed - Confessions of A-5, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11 and
A-13 cannot be relied upon as substantive pieces of evidence - As
regards A-5 and A-11, even without referring to their confessions,
their role in the conspiracy is fully established and hence their
conviction is affirmed - The prosecution has failed to prove the
involvement of A-8, A-9, A-10 and A-13 in the present cases and
hence their conviction is set aside - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 120-B,
302, 307, 324, 326 and 436 - Explosive Substance Act, 1908 - ss.
3 and 4 -
Explosives Act, 1884 - s.9B - Railways Act,1989 - ss.
15 0 and 151 - Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984
- s.4.
247
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
248
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 8 S.C.R.
s.15 r/w Rule 15 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Rules, 1987 - Confessions under - Reliability on -
Held: Confessions recorded u/s 15(1) in accordance ll'ith statutory
requiremenls and conditions u/1; 15 is admissible against the 111ake1:
co-accused, abellor or a conspira/01; subject to conditions stipulated
in Proviso to s. 15(1) - Such statement can form the basis of
conviction as against the maker of such confession - But extent of
reliability of such confession as against the co-accused should be
treated with caution.
s.20A(J) - Cognizance of offence under TADA - Need for
prior approval of District Superintendence of Police before
recording of offence under TADA by Police - Held: The provision
for prior approval is absolute imperative, in absence ofwhichji1rther
proceedings taken under TADA would be completely invalid and of
no consequence.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 According to sub-Section (1) of s. 20-A of
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, there
must be prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police,
before any information about the commission of offence under
TADA Act could be recorded by the police. This provision is
mandatory and going by the negative language employed therein
- an absolute imperative, in the absence of which further
proceedings taken under TADA Act would be completely invalid
and of no co_nsequence. [Para 42)(283-C-D]
1.2 The Designated Court had found that there was no
proper and valid invocation of the provisions of TADA Act while
dealing with Sessions Case Nos. 438 of 1994, 584 of 1994, 13 of
1995 and 14 of 1995 (the cases other than the present cases).
Sessions Case No. 438 of 1994 arose from I'IR No.336 of 1993 in
which crime, confessions of accused Nos. A9, AlO, All and A13
were recorded. In the face of the order that the provisions of
TADA Act were not validly and pro1>erly invoked, such
confessions must suffer the inevitable consequence. If there is
no valid prior approval under TADA Act, subsequent steps or
stages initiated under TADA Act are rendered invalid.
Consequently, the confessions of Accused Nos.A9, AlO, Al

## Text

_Characters 0–39,969 of 191,015. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39969 for what follows._

[2016] 8 S.C.R. 24 7
MOHD. JALEES ANSARI AND OTHERS
v.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
(Criminal Appeal No. 546 of2004)
MAY 11,2016
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987:
ss. 3, 4, 5 and 6 - Prosecution under and also under ss. 302,
307, 324, 326 and 436 of !PC; ss. 3 and 4 of Explosive Substance
Act, 1908; s.9B of Explosives Act, 1884; ss. !50 and 151 of Railways
Act,1989 and s.4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,
1984; all rlw s. 120-B !PC - Of 16 accused- For serial bomb-blast
in different trains - Case registered by CBI - Confessional
statements of the accused recorded - Confessions of A-1, A-5, A-8,
A-9, A-JO, A-11 and A-13 were recorded in crimes other than the
present cases - A-6 since escaped from custody, his case was
separated - Designated Court convir!f..ed A-1 to A-5 and A-7 to A16 - A-12 since was found to be a juvenile, his case was also
separated - Appeal by A-1 to A-5, A-7 to A-11 and A-13 to A-16 -
Held: The confessional statements of A"l, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-7, A-14,
A-15 and A-16 are admissible in lmv - Their statements are further
corroborated by the confessions of other co-accused - Therefore,
the prosecution case is established against them and hence their
conviction affirmed - Confessions of A-5, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11 and
A-13 cannot be relied upon as substantive pieces of evidence - As
regards A-5 and A-11, even without referring to their confessions,
their role in the conspiracy is fully established and hence their
conviction is affirmed - The prosecution has failed to prove the
involvement of A-8, A-9, A-10 and A-13 in the present cases and
hence their conviction is set aside - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 120-B,
302, 307, 324, 326 and 436 - Explosive Substance Act, 1908 - ss.
3 and 4 -
Explosives Act, 1884 - s.9B - Railways Act,1989 - ss.
15 0 and 151 - Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984
- s.4.
247
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
248
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 8 S.C.R.
s.15 r/w Rule 15 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Rules, 1987 - Confessions under - Reliability on -
Held: Confessions recorded u/s 15(1) in accordance ll'ith statutory
requiremenls and conditions u/1; 15 is admissible against the 111ake1:
co-accused, abellor or a conspira/01; subject to conditions stipulated
in Proviso to s. 15(1) - Such statement can form the basis of
conviction as against the maker of such confession - But extent of
reliability of such confession as against the co-accused should be
treated with caution.
s.20A(J) - Cognizance of offence under TADA - Need for
prior approval of District Superintendence of Police before
recording of offence under TADA by Police - Held: The provision
for prior approval is absolute imperative, in absence ofwhichji1rther
proceedings taken under TADA would be completely invalid and of
no consequence.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 According to sub-Section (1) of s. 20-A of
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, there
must be prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police,
before any information about the commission of offence under
TADA Act could be recorded by the police. This provision is
mandatory and going by the negative language employed therein
- an absolute imperative, in the absence of which further
proceedings taken under TADA Act would be completely invalid
and of no co_nsequence. [Para 42)(283-C-D]
1.2 The Designated Court had found that there was no
proper and valid invocation of the provisions of TADA Act while
dealing with Sessions Case Nos. 438 of 1994, 584 of 1994, 13 of
1995 and 14 of 1995 (the cases other than the present cases).
Sessions Case No. 438 of 1994 arose from I'IR No.336 of 1993 in
which crime, confessions of accused Nos. A9, AlO, All and A13
were recorded. In the face of the order that the provisions of
TADA Act were not validly and pro1>erly invoked, such
confessions must suffer the inevitable consequence. If there is
no valid prior approval under TADA Act, subsequent steps or
stages initiated under TADA Act are rendered invalid.
Consequently, the confessions of Accused Nos.A9, AlO, All and
MOHD. JALEES ANSARI AND OTHERS v. CENTRAL
BUREAl;J OF INVESTIGATION
Al3 are without any legal sanction and cannot be relied upon.
[Para 46)(287-C-F]
1.3 So far as the present cases are coucerned, registration
of crime under the provisions of TADA Act in Hyderabad Crime
is valid and proper and that Ext.P-450 was correct exercise of
power.The registration of the .FIR in this case under the
provisions of TADA Act was quite prompt. The contemporaneous
documentation shows clear invocation of the provisions of the
TADA Act right at the inception. In fact, when the cases were
made over to CBI for investigation, this was the only crime which
already stood registered under the provisions of TADA Act. The
cross-examination of PW 117 does not in any manner raise any
doubt about the version coming from PW 117.[Para 53][291-AB]
1.4 In respect of ex11losions in question, except the one
concerning Hyderabad explosion, initially provisions of TADA
Act were not invoked. However, after reading Report Ext.P-506
emanating from FSLAhmedabad and other case papers, PW-145
found that the provisions of TADA Act were attracted and,
therefore, by his report dated 08.01.1994 he sought approval for
addition of provisions of TADA Act. The endorsement at the foot
of that report in the handwriting of PW-62 which document was
exhibited at Ext. P-246 is valid exercise of power invoking the
provisions of TADA Act. Immediately on the next date, a fax
message Ext. P-247 was sent by PW-62 to Lucknow stating that
disclosure of Al revealed that offences were punishable under
TADA Act and that Sections of TADA Act be invoked in RC43
and 44(s)/93/CBl/Lncknow. This communication also disclosed
the roles of A3 and A4. These two accused were immediately
arrested and applications Ext. P-518 and P-521 filed for their
remand clearly mention the provisions of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of
TADA Act. This contemporaneous material, therefore, fully
establishes the invocation of provisions of TADA Act and the
existence of Exbs. P-246 and P-247. The record further indicates
that on the date when second application Ext. P-521 was preferred,
PW-62 was present in Lucknow and had disclosed the result of
interrogation of Al. The application Ext. P-521 therefore refers
to all details and particulars gathered after such interrogation.
249
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
250
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 8 S.C.R.
A In the circumstances, the orders invoking provisions of TADA
Act as evident from Ext. P-246 and 247 were perfectly valid. The
contemporaneous record also fully establishes and supports this
part. [Paras 54, 55)(291-C-D, F-H; 292-A-C)
B
c
1.5 Once it became apparent that the explosions were part
of a single conspiracy and the role of various accused became
apparent from the interrogation of Al, the CBI investigating Team
at Jaipur was appraised of these developments. PW-34 therefore
invoked the provisions of TADA Act vide Ext. P-160. There is
nothing on record to doubt the correctness of said order Ext. P160. Viewed in the perspective that it was the same agency that
was investigating into five different crimes where explosions had
occurred in identical way, soon after the disclosure by one of the
conspirators it was but natural for any investigating team to deduce
that not only were the acts punishable under the provisions of
TADA Act warranting invocation of TADA Act but also that these
D explosions were part of a single conspiracy. It would be natural
in the circumstances that the team investigating an individual
case would, therefore, be appraised of the development. Ext.P246 therefore logically led to similar invocation in other cases as
well. Thus, there is no inconsistency or infirmity in the invocation
E
F
of provisions of TADA Act.[Para 56)(292-D-G]
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (1994)
4 SCC 602 : 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 360; Rangku Dutta
v. State of Assam (2011) 6 SCC 358: 2011 (8) SCR 639;
Ashrafkhan v. State of Gujarat (2012) 11 SCC 606
: 2012 (12) SCR 1033 -
relied on.
2. Confessions of AS was recorded in Case No. 46/94 P.S.
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and of AS was recorded in Crime No.
151/93, CCS Hyderabad (cases other than the present cases).
There is nothing on record indicating the status of these cases
including whether the charges were framed or whether respective
G Courts had accepted the invocation of TADA or whether the cases
had in any way attained finality as one tried for offences under
TADA Act. Apart from the Recording Officers' testimony that
the confessions were recorded by them, there is nothing on the
record even to lend semblance of support that the matters had
H been taken to logical culmination in a trial under TADA Act. In
MOHD. JALEES ANSARI AND OTHERS v. CENTRAL
25 l
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
the circumstances, it would be extremely difficult to rely on the
A
confessions of AS and AS. Therefore the confessions of AS and
AS cannot be relied upon as substantive pieces of evidence. [Para
47)[2S7-G-H; 2SS-A-C]
3. The confession of Al was also not recorded in the
present crimes but was recorded in Bombay Bomb Blast case.
The record indicates that the accused was produced before the
Designated Court, Bombay on 2S.02.1994 when on an application
moved by CBI, he was discharged from Bombay Bomb Blast case.
A confession, if usable under Section 15 of the TADA, would not
become unusable merely because the case is different or the
crime is different. In the preset case, it was neither contended
that there was no valid invocation of the provisions of TADA Act
in Bombay Bomb Blast case nor it was submitted that on the
date when Al made his confession in Bombay Bomb Blast matte1;
B
c
he was not accusi!d of having co~mitted offences punishable under
TADA Act. Subsequent discharge of the accused at the instance
D
of the prosecution under Section 169 Cr.P.C. would not in any
way dilute or diminish the value of such confession, if it is
otherwise admissible in law. Therefore, merely because the
confession of Al was recorded in a different matter and/or that
he was discharged from that matter would not cause any inhibition
for using such confession in the present matter, if the confession
otherwise passes the test of admissibility in accordance with
law. The confession of Al can certainly be taken into account, if
it is otherwise admissible in law. [Paras 4S, 49, 50 and 51 )[2SSD; 2S9-G-H; 290-B-C, D-EJ
State of G11jarat v. Mohd. Atiq (199S) 4 SCC 351 : 199S
(2) SCR 664; State of Rajasthan v. Bhoop Singh (1997)
10 SCC 675: 1997 (1) SCR 190; Kartar SinRh v. State
of Punjab 1994 (3) SCC 569 : 1994 (2) SCR 375 -
relied on.
4. In all there were four orders issuing sanction u/s. 20
A(2) of TADA, namely Ext. P 432 dated 20.0S.1994 by PW-107,
Ext. PW- 43S dated 14.04.1995 by PW-107, Ext. P 471 dated
25.07.1997 by PW-130 and Ext. P 469 dated 27.02.199S by PW
12S, who were Directors, CBI at the relevant time. Going through
the testimony of these witnesses and the orders, no infirmity in
E
F
G
H
252
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 8 S.C.R.
their assessment and exercise of power is found. In fact these
orders of sanction were not seriously questioned by the accused.
[Para 57][293-B-C)
5.1
In order to prove its case, the prosecution has relied
on number of exhibits and testimony of various witnesses. Though
there is no direct evidence in the form of version coming from
any witness implicating any of the accused clearly as regards any
of the material stages, according to the prosecution the
confessions of various accused as corroborated by circumstantial
evidence arc sufficient to establish its case. Confessions are thus
the fulcrum of the case of the prosecution. [Para 59)[295-D-E]
5.2 Section 15 (1) of TADA Act expressly makes confession
of an accused recorded by a Police Officer admissible. It is settled
position in law that confession so recorded under Section 15 (1)
of TADA Act in accordance with statutory requirements and
conditions in Ruic 15 of TADA Rules is admissible against the
maker, co-accused, abettor or a conspirator subject to conditions
stipulated in a Proviso to Section 15 (1) of the Act. The confession
so recorded in accordance with law and guidelines is taken as
substantive piece of evidence and can form the foundation or a
basis for conviction of the maker, co-accused, abettor or
conspirator. Though the confession if found to be recorded in
conformity with the requirements of law can certainly form the
basis of conviction as against the maker of such confession, the
extent of reliability of such confession as against the co-accused
has however been treated with caution. [Para 60)[295-F-H; 296A]
State v. Nalini & Ors. 1999(5) SCC 253: 1999 (3) SCR
1 - relied on.
5.3 The case of the Prosecution against Accused Nos. 1, 2,
3, 4, 7, 14, 15 and 16 stands fully established. The confessional
statements of each of these accused which are found to be
admissible in law, themselves arc sufficient to establish the case
of the Prosecution against them. The corroboration is also
available inter se through the confessions of the other co-accused
as well. Consequently, the conviction and sentence recorded by
the Designated Court against each of these Accused, namely Al,
MOHD. JALEES ANSARI AND OTHERS v. CENTRAL
253
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
A2, A3, A4, A 7 ,A14, AlS and Al6 is maintained and the appeal A
at the instance of each of them stands dismissed.[Para 70][330D-I?]
S.4 The role of AS is evident from the confessions of Al,
A3, A4 and A16 which not only lend corroboration to each other
but also get support from the testimony of PW41 who identified
AS and deposed that AS had come along with Al for his passport
work. Therefore, even without referring to the confession of AS
Ext.P-241A, the role of AS in the present conspiracy stands fully
established. This appeal at the instance of AS is therefore
dismissed and his conviction and sentence as recorded by the
Designated Court is affirmed.[Para 71.1)(330-G-H; 331-A-C]
S.S As regards AS, apart from reference to his role, as stated
in the confession of Al, there is nothing on record. No
prosecution witness has stated anything against him nor any other
confession makes any reference to him. All that is on record is
the confession of Al who names this accused as his associate
including the fact that he had assisted him in planting bombs on
other occasions as well. It is difficult to rely on the confession of
Al, a co-accused simplicitor without there being any corroboration
coming from any other material on record. Thus, there is no
material on record to support his conviction and sentence. (Para
71.2)[331-D-E)
S.6 As regards A9, confession of AlS discloses that he
introduced A9 to Al and the confession further records about
the role f>layed by A9 and his association in causing bomb blasts
at police station in Hyderabad. However those incidents are not
the ones for which A9 is presently being tried nor is it the case of
the prosecution that those blasts were part of the present
conspiracy. Insofar as the present incident is concerned, the
confession of AlS is silent about the role played by A9 and
therefore that confession is not of any assistance in considering
the matter as against A9. Confession of Al goes on to say that
Al had taught A9 how to make bombs and also that he had
discussed the plan with A9. However in the absence of any other
material on record to lend any semblance of corroboration to the
confession of Al, the conviction and sentence of A9 simply on
the basis of confession of Al cannot be snstained. [Para
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
254
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 8 S.C.R.
A 71.3)[331-F-HJ
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
5.7 As regards AlO his role is neither referred to in the
confession of Al or A15 nor there is any material other than the
confession of AlO himself on record. The conviction and sentence
of AlO is therefore completely unsustainable. [Para 71.4][332-A)
5.8 The confession of Al and Al5 are consistent and show
that a bomb was given by Al to A-11 who in turn, gave the bomb
that was meant for Bangalore Kurla Express. The association of
this accused as stated in the confession of Al is fully corroborated
by the confession of Al5. Even without referring to the confession
of A-11, the involvement of this accused in the present conspiracy
is fully established. Therefore, the case of the prosecution is
established against A-11. [Para 71.5][332-E-F]
5.9 There is a reference about role of A-13 in the confession
of Al5 to the effect that on 05.12.1993 when Al5 had gone to the
house of All, Al3 was also present. Apart from this, there is no
reference to anything about Al3. The confession of Al also does
not make any reference nor does it attribute any role to Al3. In
the circumstances the conviction and sentence of A13 is not
sustainable at all. [Para 71.6)[332-G)
5.10 Thus, the case of the prosecution, stands fully
established as against Al, A2, A3, A4, AS, A7, All, Al4, A15 and
A16. They are guilty of the offences with which they were charged.
Their conviction and sentence as recorded by the Designated
Court is maintained. The appeals in so far as Accused Nos. 8, 9,
10 and 13 arc allowed and their conviction and sentence is set
aside. [Para 72)(332-H; 333-A)
Karlar SinKh v. Slale of Punjab 1994 (3) SCC 569:1994
(2) SCR 375 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 360
relied on
Para 42
2011 (8) SCR 639
relied on
Para 43
2012 (12) SCR 1033
relied on
Para 44
1998 (2) SCR 664
relied on
Para 49
1997 (1) SCR 190
relied on
Para49
1999 (3) SCR 1
relied on
Para 60
MOHD. JALEES ANSARI AND OTHERS v. CENTRAL
255
BUREAU OF INVESTlGATION
1994 (2) SCR 375
relied on
Para 61
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appe.al No.
546of2004.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2004 passed by Sh. V.
K. Mathur Judge, Designated CourtAjmer, Rajasthan in TADA Special
Case No. 06 of 1994.
Sanjay R. Hegde, Ratnakar Dash, R. S. Sodhi, Sr. Advs, Ms.
Nitya Ramakrishnan, Mohd. lrshad Han if, Arif Ali Khan, Mohd. Adee!,
Omkar Srivastava, N. A. Usmani, Satpal Singh, Guneet Kaur, Shadaan
Farasat, Shakil Ahmed Syed,Aarif Ali, Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, Advs.
for the Appellants.
P. K. Dey, Ms. Shreyasi Chakrabarty, Kumar Parimal, Sanjib Das,
Ms. Rashrni Malhotra, Andleeb Naqvi, Vijay Pal Singh, B.V. Bairam
Das, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J, I. This appeal under Section 19 of
A
B
c
D
the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter
refen-ed to as TADA Act) challenges the judgment and final order dated
28.02.2004 passed by the Designated Court Ajmer, Rajasthan in TADA
Special Case No.6 of 1994. Originally sixteen accused persons were
E
tried for having committed offences under TADA Act and other
enactments. Accused No.6 lrfan Ahmad escaped from custody while
the trial was going on and therefore his case was separated. He was
later arrested in June, 2015 and is now being proceeded against separately.
Accused No.12 Mohd. Azeemuddin though convicted and sentenced by
the Designated Court was found to be juvenile on the date ofoccurrence
in this appeal and as such his case stands separated. All the other accused
namely A-1 to A-5, A-7 to A-11 and A-13 toA-16 are presently in appeal.
2. There were bomb blasts in various trains during the night
intervening 51" and 61" of December, 1993.
(i) An explosion occurred around I 0:50 p.m. on 05.12.1993 in
Rajdhani Express running from New Delhi to Howrah. In that explosion
near Kanpur Railway Station, two persons were injured. FIR No.595/
1993 (Ext. P-307) of P.S. GRP Kanpur was accordingly registered.
F
G
H
256
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 8 S.C.R.
(ii) At about 5 a.m. in the morning of 06.12.1993 an explosion
took place in Rajdhani Express running from Howrah to New Delhi in
Kanpur Division. However no major injury was suffered by anyone.
This led to filingofFIR No.765of1993 (Ext. P426)of P.S. GRPAllahabad
which was later re-registered as FIR No.597of1993 of P.S. GRP Kanpur.
(iii) An explosion occurred at about 5: 15 a.m. on 06.12.1993 in
Rajdhani Express running from Mumbai Central to New Delhi near Kota
Railway Station which caused injuries to five persons leading to
registration of FIR No.174 of 1993 (Ext. P60) of P.S. GRP Kota.
(iv) At about 6 a.111. on 06.12.1993 an explosion took place in
Flying Queen running from Surat Railway Station to Mumbai Central,
near Bestan Railway Station causing injury to one person. This led to
lodging of FIR No. l 32 of 1993 (Ext. P 150) of P.S. GRP Val sad.
(v) At about 7:05 a.m. on 06.12.1993 a bomb exploded in A.P.
Express running from Hyderabad to Nizammudin. This explosion occurred
in general compartment while the train was at MoulaAli Railway Station
causing death of two persons. This led to registration of FIR No.251 I
1993 (Ext.D-63) of PS GRP Malkajgiri.
(vi) A device meant to cause explosion was detected by a watchful
passenger in Bangalore Kurla Express while the traill was near Kaijat
Railway Station. The device was thrown out of the Railway compartment
and as such did not cause any damage. This incident led to registration
of FIR No.91 of 1993 (Ext.D-162) of PS GRP Ka1jat.
3. All the aforesaid six crimes were registered against unknown
persons. Out of the aforesaid six incidents, the explosion that occurred
at Mau la Ali Station in Hyderabad had caused death of two persons.
PW 117 P. Chandrashekar Reddy, Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy
Distt, on receiving information from Police Control Room reached the
site at about 8:30 a.m. on 06.12.1993 and dictated proceedings Ext.P
450 later in the Police Station invoking provisions ofTADAAct. Ext.P450 was to the following effect:-
"PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUPRINTENDENT OF POLICE:
RANGA REDDY DIST. PRESENT: SRI. P. CHANDRA
SEKHAR REDDY, JPS.,
No. 251/Camp/SP-RR/93 dated 06.12.1993
H
Sub:-Cr.No.251 /93 of P.S. Malkajgiri
MOHD. JALEES ANSARI AND OTHERS v. CENTRAL
257
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]
Sri P. Radha Krishna Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Malkajgiri
A
P.S., sent the contents of the complaint given by Sri. Ahmed
Hussain, which revealed the facts that attracts Section 3, 4 and 5
of TADA besides others Sections of Law. Having satisfied, I am
permitting the S.I. to register the case U/s 3, 4 and 5 of TADA
besides other Sections of Law.
To
Station I-louse Officer, Malkajgiri P.S.
Copy to S.D. P.O Malkajgiri for inf."
Sd/-
dated 06.12.1993
Superintendent of Police,
Ranga Reddy District
B
c
FIR No.251 of 1993 was therefore registered for offences
punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of TADA Act besides other
provisions. Out of the aforesaid six FIR's only FIR No.251 at 1993 of D
PS GRP Malkhajgiri was registered for offences under TADA while the
provisions of TADA were not initially invoked in rest of the FIR's.
4. Vi de notifications dated 21.12.1993 and 28.12.1993 the crimes
registered by first Five FIR's, where the explosions had in fact occurred
were transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation ("CBI", for short)
for investigation. The CBI thereafter re-registered the crimes as R.C.
No.43(S) /93 of CBI Lucknow, R.C. No.44 (S)/93 of CBI Lukcnow,
R.C. No.37 (S)/93 of CBI Jaipur, RC 43(S)/93 of CBI Ahmedabad and
RC No.32 (S)/ 93 of CBI Hyderabad against those registered under
Serial No.(i) to (v) respectively of the preceding paragraph. PW 148
R.P. Kaushal was the Investigating Officer as regards both crimes
registered at Lucknow. I-le was also the Investigating Officer regardi1ig
E
F
the crime registered at Jaipur but was later replaced by PW 150 P.D.
Meena. PW 145 K S Nair was the Investigating Officer as regards tt1e
crime registered at Hyderabad. He was initially in charge of investigation
regarding the crime registered at Ahmedabad as well, but was later
G
replaced by PW 140 V.K. Bindal.
5. PW 145 K.S. Nair reached Ahmedabad on 28.12.1993 and
sent a requisition on 29.12.1993 to the Director, FSL, Ahmedabad and
received Report Ext. P-506 dated 30.12.1993. From reading of the
H
258
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 8 S.C.R.
A documents and other case papers he found that the provisions of TADA
Act were attracted to the case and therefore prepared Report dated
08.01.1994 seeking approval for adding provisions of TADA Act. He
was however required to go to Hyderabad on 11.01.1994. While in
Hyderabad, he came to know about arrest of Al Dr. Jalees Ansari on
B
c
12.01.1994 in connection with Bombay Blast Case. He, therefore, went
to Mumbai on 13.01.1994 and reached STF Office at 7:00 pm. From his
interrogation, involvement of said A I Dr. JaleesAnsari in the serial train
blasts and that of A3 Habib Ahmed Khan and A4 M. Jamal Alvi was
discovered.
6. On 13.01.1994 PW 62 H.C. Singh, SP, STF, CBI also came
down to Mumbai from New Delhi and PW 145 K.S. Nairhad discussion
with him in the matter including the result of the interrogation of A 1 Dr.
Jalees Ansari. PW 145 K.S. Nair, who was carrying with him copy of
the Report prepared by him on 08.01.1994, submitted it to PW 62 H.C.
Singh, whereupon PW 62 H.C. Singh gave his approval for adding the
D provisions of TADA Act. This Report Ext. P-246 was to the following
effect.
"Sub: Investigation of RC 43(S)/93-CBf/Ahmedabad
Case RC 43(S)/93-CBI/Ahmedabad has been registered
on 23.12.93 on transfer from the local police authorities u/
E
s 307, 120-B IPC and Sec. 3,4,5 of Explosive Substances
Act of 84, and Sec. 3(2) of the Prevention of Damage of
Public Properties Act.
Facts in brief are that one bomb exploded in the flying
queen train which left Surat Station at 5:30 AM of6-12-93
F
for Bombay, in llnd class compartment No.7392(D-I) the
train was bound for Bombay. The explosion took place
exactly at 6.00 AM when the ill fated train reached Bheistan
Rly. Station. One person namely SH. Amish Piyushkar
Shah aged about 23 years Rio Vanktash Appartment 7 I A
Ami Falia Surat, the attendant of the complainant Shy.
G
Ramniklal Malukchand Shah Head Clerk, (Retd.), Rajkot
Railway, had suffered head injuries on account of bomb
explosion. The victim was seated in seat No.136 of D-1
compartment whereas the explosive device was reportedly
kept under the seat "Sadiq" for his journey from Surat to
H
MOHD. JALEES ANSARI AND OTHERS v. CENTRAL
259
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]
Bombay. Investigation revealed that the said suspect though
A
reserved the seat but did not travel in this train. In all there
were reservations for 11 passengers including the suspect
and the victim in the said D-1 bogie.
The exhibits have been seized from the scene of
occurrence by the local police authorities and sent to the
Forensic Laboratory/ Ahmedabad for expert opinion. The
seized articles included iron nails, clock pieces and the pieces
of Alfa luggage etc. These articles were examined by
Sh.SM Daiji, Asstt. Director, FSL/ Ahmedabad and opined
that Amonium and nitrate redicles, (redicles of ammonium
nitrate) and the hydro carbons ofpetrolium oil mixture of
high explosive were detected in the exhibits. Sh.B.P ..
U padhayay,Asstt. Director/FSL after examining the articles
seized from the scene of occurrence concluded that the
bomb was kept in "Alfa luggage" with electronic clock
machine needle etc. were used to ensure 'delay
mechanism'. Investigation also confirmed that the bomb
exploded after half-an-hour run from Surat Station.
Director/FSL informed that similar explosive devices had
been planted in other running trains where similar bomb
explosions had taken place on 06.12.1993. The expe11
opinion clearly indicates that the suspect/suspects had
planted the explosive device which comes within the ambit
of TADA and the facts reveals so far constitute offence
punishable U/Ss 3, 4 & 5 of the TADA (P) Act also.
The sequential nature of the explosions which had
occurred in 5 running trains simultaneously clearly indicates
that there existed a deep rooted conspiracy to strike terror
in the people to cause loss to lives and damage to public
properties it is, necessary that Section 3, 4 & 5 of the TADA
(P) Act for further investigation in this case. Copy of the
expert opinions ofFSL/ Ahmedabad is attached for perusal.
Submitted please.
(K.S. Nair)
DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE
CBI STF NEW DELHI
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
260
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 8 S.C.R.
A
The facts revealed make out a case uls 3 & 4 of TADA (P)
B
c
Act. Inclusion of these Sections of law is approved.'
Sd/-
H.C.Singh
dated 13.01.1994
Supdt. of Pol ice
C.B.I.
New Delhi"
7. Since the applicability of the provisions ofTADAAct was also
fo.1.1nd to have been made out as regards other crimes, a fax message
was sent by PW 62 H.C. Singh to SP CBI Lucknow on 14.01.1994
requesting that provisions ofTADAAct be included and that A3 Habib
Ahmed Khan and A4 M. Jamal Alvi be arrested. This fax message,
Ext. P-24 7 was as under:-
·
"FAX MESSAGE
TO
SP CBI LUCKNOW
D
FROM : SP CBI STF NEW DELHI
CAMP: BOMBAY
E
F
G
H
REF NO. 35/94/CBl/STF, BOMBAY
One Dr. Mohd. Jalees Ansari arrested in l(S)/93/STF/
Bombay(Bombay Bomb Blast case) has disclosed that the planning
and execution of bomb blasts in Rajdhani Express Trains near
Kanpur on 5/6.12.93 was done by Jamal Alvi Rio Chawal Wali
Gali, Nakhas Chow, Lucknow and Dr. Habib R/o Kaharon Ka
Adda, Rae Bareli. It is requested that these persons be arrested
in RC 43 & 44(S)/93/CBl/LUCKNOW and farther investigations
carried out. CIO Sh. R. P. Kaushal Dy. SP is reaching Lucknow
today evening by flight No. IC-835. The disclosures of Dr. Jalees
Ansari reveal offences under Sections 3, 4 & 5 of TADA (P)
Act. Hence these Sections of TADA (P) Act be included in the
case diary.
Sd/-
H.C. Singh
dated 14. I. 1994
SP, CBI, STF NEW DELHI
CAMP AT BOMBAY"
1 This endorsement was in the handwriting of PW 62 HC Singh "·ho then put his
signature below the endorsement.
MOHD. JALEES ANSARI AND OTHERS v. CENTRAL
261
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]
8. While PW 148 R.P.Kaushal was at SPE Headqual·ters at Delhi
A
on 14.01.1994, he received information from PW 62 H.C. Singh who
was then camping at Mumbai that he should go to Lucknow immediately.
On reaching Lucknow on 15.01.1994 PW 148 R.P. Kaushal came to
know that A3 Dr. Habib Ahmed Khan and A4 Jamal Alvi had been
arrested on 14.01.1994 by Lucknow Branch of CBI. He also received
the aforesaid fax message Ext. 247 regarding addition of Sections 3, 4
and 5 of TADA Act in both the cases. On 15.01.1994, he submitted an
application Ext. P-518 under his signature seeking police remand of the
arrested accused. In this application, he had included the provisions of
Sections 3, 4 and 5 of TADA Act. Another application namely Ext. P521 was submitted seeking remand for 14 days. This application had
also included aforesaid provisions of TADA Act.
B
c
9. The Investigating Team conducting investigation in connection
with the crime registered at Jaipur was appraised of the disclosures
coming from the interrogation of A 1 Dr. Jalees Ansari that one of the
suspects namely A2 Ashfaque Khan lived in Dausa in Rajasthan.
D
Immediately, search of the residence of A2 Ashfaque Khan was effected
in which certain documents were seized indicating his complicity in the
crime. A2 Ashfaque Khan was called for interrogation. PW 34 Shankar
Surolia, SP, CBI, SPE of Jaipur after having perused the seized documents
and being satisfied about the applicability of provisions ofTADAAct,
issued following order Ext. P-160 on 15.1.1994 directing addition of E
Sections 3 and 4 of TADA Act in the matter.
"Order
RC No. 37(S)/93 of SPE/CBl/Jaipur dated 15.01.1994
I have gone through the Case Diaries, documents and
F
statement of accused Aspak Khan which clearly indicate
that the accused persons Dr. Jalees Ansari, Shameem Ansari
Rio Bombay Aspak Khan Rio Dausa and others conspired
with each other during the year 1992-93 to commit the
terrorist and destructive activities, to the harmony amongst
G
different Sections of people of India by using explosives
substances. In persons planted bomb to kill the passengers
and damage the Rajdhan i Express Train Ex Bombay to New
Delhi, in Coach No. C-7, which exploded at about 5. l 5AM
on 6.12.93 between Indragarh and Amii Stations. The blast
H
262
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 8 S.C.R.
caused injuries to the various passengers and damages to
the public property. Thus, the accused persons have
committed offences punishable u/s 3 & 4 of TADA (P)
1987 in addition to Sections mentioned in the FIR. I
therefore, direct Sh. R. D. Kalia, Inspector, CBI, Jaipur tu
proceed with the investigation accordingly.
Sd/-
Supdt. of Police
SPE, CBI, Jaipur''
The provisions of TADA Act thus stood invoked in all the
crimes.
10. When A 1 Dr. Jalees Ansari was arrested in connection with
Bombay Blast Case, 7 firearms, 2 grenades, 20 detonators. live cartridges,
plastic bag containing explosives and timer device were found during
search and seizure. At the time of arrest of A2 Ashfaque Khan, visiting
card of A I Dr. Jalees Ansari as well as diary containing name of
'Abdullah' with a phone number was found. Similarly, at the time of
arrest of A4 Jamal Al vi, certain arms and explosives were recovered.
11. On 20.01.1994 application Ext.D-198 was moved on behalf of
AS Afaque Khan that said Accused was in illegal detention of CBI, to
which a reply was filed in the Comi at Lucknow that the Accused was
interrogated on 17.1.1994 and was called for fu1iher interrogation on
21.01.1994. It may be noted that a telegram was sent on 18.01.1994 to
the Hon 'ble President oflndia that said accused was in the confinement
of CBI. However according to the Record, AS Afaq Khan was arrested
at I 0 p.m. on 20.01.1994 by Delhi Police in connection with Case no.
46/94 of P.S. Malviya Nagar, New Delhi under Sections 3, 4 and S of
TADA Act.
12. On 281h and 29'h January, 1994, a confessional statement Ext.
P 248 of A2 Ashfaque Khan came to be recorded under Section l S of
TADA Act by PW 62 H.C. Singh. The confessing accused was produced
before PW 62 H.C. Singh on 28.01.1994, on which date PW 62 H.C.
Singh gave him 24 hours time to think over the matter. The confession
was recorded the next day. In his confessional statement A2 Ashfaque
Khan disclosed how he came in contact with A I Dr. Jaless Ansari and
how he procured explosive material for him.
13. On 02.02.1994 a confessional statement of AS Afaque Khan,
MOHD. JALEES ANSARI AND OTHERS v. CENTRAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [UDAY UMESI-1 LALIT, J.]
Ext. 241-A under Section 15 of TADA Act was recorded by PW 61
Prabhat Singh, DCP, South Delhi. The first part of the statement was
recorded by one Nepal Singh in his handwriting. It was stated in the
confession that AS Afaque Khan was present in a meeting held in the
last week of September 1993 which meeting was attended by A I Dr.
Jalces Ansari, A3 Dr. Habib and A4 Dr. Jamal Alvi and others in which
it was planned and decided to cause explosion of bombs in long distance
prestigious trains. It was further stated by him that he had fixed the
circuit and timing in bombs. On the same day, A6 lrfan Khan was
produced before PW 61 Prabhat Singh and his confessional statement
Ext. P-243 was recorded.
14. On 06.02.1994 as A I Dr. Jalees Ansari desired to give
confessional statement; he was produced in CBI office before PW 62
H.C. Singh, who gave him warning that such statement could be used
against him and gave him 24 hours time to reflect over the matter. A I
Dr. Jalees Ansari was again produced the next day i.e. on 07.02.1994,
when PW,62 1-1.C. Singh recorded his confession Ext. P 250. It was
stated in the confession that after completing his MBBS, he had initially
joined service as Doctor in Public Health Department and later did private
practice, that he had planted a bomb in Malegaon for which he was
arrested and later released on bail, that during the year 1992-1993 he
continued to plant bombs at various places in Mumbai and in trains which
claimed some lives, that he met A2 Ashfaque Khan who supplied him
detonators and gelatin sticks. I-le, therefore, narrated how he and other
accused had planned and executed the explosions that occurred on 51h
and 6111 December 1993.
15. On 12.02.1994 A3 Dr. Habib Ahmed Khan was produced
before PW 62 I-IC Singh in his office at New Delhi as he wanted to
make a confessional statement. The accused was given 24 hours time
to think over the matter. A3 Dr. Habib Ahmed Khan was again produced
the next day and his confession Ext. P-251 under Section 15 of TADA
Act was recorded.
16. On 16.02.1994 PW I 03 K.M. Reddy, Deputy Commissioner
of Police Hyderabad recorded confessional statements of Al I Md.
Shamsuddin (Ext.P. 427-428) of Al2 Md. Azeemuddin (Ext. P. 429430) and of A 13 Md. Yusuf (Ext. P 431-432). These three confessions
were recorded in Crime No.336 of 1993, Abid Road Police Station,
Hyderabad. In these confessions, the confessing accused stated how
263
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
264
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 8 S.C.R.
A
they were associated with A I Dr. Jalees Ansari and how they had assisted
in planting bomb at Secundrabad Railway Station in September 1993
and in A.P. Express on the morning of 06.12.1993.
17. On 17.02.1994 A4 M. Jamal Al vi was produced before PW
62 HC Singh as the accused wanted to make a confessional statement.
B
PW 62 HC Singh gave him 24 hours time to think over. He was again
produced on 18.02.1994 and PW 62 HC Singh proceeded to record his
confessional statement (Ext.P 253).
18. On 28.02.1994A1 Dr. Jalees Ansari was produced before the
Designated Court, Bombay with application under Section 169 Cr. P.C.
c preferred by CBI seeking his discharge from Bombay Bomb Blasts Case.
It was stated that after investigation the accused was not found to be
connected with Bombay Bomb Blasts case. Accordingly, the Designated
Court discharged A 1 Dr. Jalees Ansari from Bombay Bomb Blasts case.
On the same day an application namely MA 72 of 1994 was preferred
by PW 150 PD Meena seeking custody of A 1 Jalees Ansari which was
D
given to him by the Designated Comi. The material recovered at the
time of his arrest and during search and seizure was also made over.
Thereafter, on 01.03.1994A1 Dr. JaleesAnsari was produced in TADA
Court, Ajmer, Rajashthan but since the presiding officer was on leave he
was produced before Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer who gave two
E
days remand. On 04.03.1994A1 Dr. Jalees Ansari was produced before
TADA Court which remanded him to judicial custody.
19. On 08.03 .1994 AS Mohd. Saleem Ansari was produced before
PW 9 K.V. Reddy, Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Zone,
Hyderabad in connection with Crime No.151 of 1993 registered under
F
TADA Act and other offences, as the accused desired to give a
confessional statement. In the confession (Ext.P-444) recorded by PW
I 09 K.V. Reddy, the confessing accused accepted his role in Bomb
Blasts of Humayun Nagar Police Station and Abid Road Police Station
and that he was also associated in planting the Bomb on 06.12.1993 in
A.P. Express.
G
H
20. On the same day a confessional statement (Ext.P 445) of A
10 Mohd. Nissarudin was also recorded by PW 109 K.V. Reddy in
connection with Crime No.336 of 1993, Abid Road Police Station,
Hyderabad. The confessing accused in said confessional statement
accepted his role in plantingofBomb in the compartment of A.P. Express
MOHD. JALEES ANSARI AND OTHERS v. CENTRAL
265
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]
on 06. 12.1993 and that he was also having two other Bombs which
A
were meant for use in K.K. Express on the same day but because of his
ill health he could not use them.
21. On 26.04.1994 an order was passed clubbing all five cases as
they were found to be outcome of a single conspiracy. The order dated
26.04.1994 (Ext.P 259) was to the following effect:-
B
"ORDER
Investigations in the under mentioned cases relating bomb
blasts in prestigious trains on 5/6.