Ayodhya Terror Attack 2005 | After 18 Years In Jail, Allahabad HC Grants Bail To 4 Accused, Lists Appeals Against Conviction On Dec 4

While passing the order for bail, the bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi took into account the long period of incarceration of the accused who were arrested in August 2005.

“The liberty of the individuals would have to be respected while balancing the competing interest of State to maintain order in the society,” the bench remarked as it posted their appeals against conviction for hearing on December 4.

The case in brief

As per the prosecution’s case, on July 5, 2005, at about 9.15 in the morning, a marshal jeep stopped near a Jain Temple at Ayodhya, whereafter a blast occurred in the jeep itself resulting in the death of a civilian. Five heavily armed terrorists then attacked the 'Ram Janmbhoomi Sthal' and threw a grenade at the site, to which, the security forces retaliated. The terrorists also entered the Mata Sita Rasoi and fired continuously. To stop them, a platoon of 35 CRPF soldiers was deployed. The firing continued for almost two hours and all five terrorists were killed.

The prosecution case primarily relies upon the recovery of a Nokia handset which was put on surveillance and on the basis of call detail records, the accused persons were traced and connected with the offence as conspirators to the crime.

It is also the prosecution case that in fact seven other SIM cards were operated from the same handset. All the accused persons have thus been connected with the crime in question on the basis of call detail records traceable to the handset in question as well as certain confessional statements made by the accused.

The Trial Court, on the basis of evidence led on record, delivered a detailed judgment holding that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case beyond reasonable doubt mainly relying upon the recovery of the Nokia mobile handset. All 4 were sentenced to life imprisonment in 2019.

Arguments in brief

Challenging the verdict and their conviction, the accused persons moved an appeal before the High Court wherein it was contended that the recovery of the Nokia mobile handset itself is not proved as no reference to its recovery was made in the inquest report.

It was also argued that out of 29 witnesses of fact, only three of them namely PW-14, PW-29 and PW-30 have referred to the recovery of the mobile phone and none of the other witnesses have testified to such recovery.

Lastly, it was also argued that notwithstanding the fact that recovery of the handset itself is doubtful, even the subsequent mobile calls relied upon by the prosecution are substantiated only by the CDRs in respect of which there is no certificate produced in terms of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

On the other hand, the Counsel for the state submitted that the case relates to a deadly terrorist strike in which innocent persons have lost their lives and the implication of accused-appellants has been established on the basis of the recovery of a Nokia mobile handset in which various SIM cards are used and are shown to be connected to them.

High Court’s observations

At the outset, the Court noted that though the paper book had been prepared in these appeals, many of the documents which are referred to at the stage of hearing had not been included in it, hence, the Court directed the Registry to prepare a comprehensive paper book including other left out records in the form of the supplementary paper book within a period of six weeks from today.

In view of the above, the Court opined that the prayer made by the accused persons for consideration of their first bail applications is liable to be considered since hearing of the appeal may take some more time as the comprehensive paper book is not ready and its preparation may require some more time.

Further, perusing the case records, the Court noted that this was a case of terrorist attack at a significant religious place, which is grave and serious in nature and thus, the same has to be treated as an attack on the civilized society.

Regarding the dispute over the alleged delivery of the mobile handset, the Court said that it was not required to return any definite finding on this aspect, as it added that a detailed appraisal of the evidence led during trial, on such aspect, would be required at the time of hearing of the appeals.

However, the Court did find that prima facie arguable pointswere raised in the appeal on the aspect relating to the factum of recovery of the mobile handset.

The Court also took into account the issue raised pertaining to the evidentiary value of call detail records particularly as there was no certificate produced in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

Lastly, noting that the prosecution has stated that none of the accused-appellants have any criminal history and they have been languishing in jail for the last more than 18 years, the Court, stressing the importance of the liberty of the accused, granted them bail.

Appearances

Counsels For the Appellants: M.S. Khan and Arif Khan (through VC mode), Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Qausar Khan, Chaudhary Dil Nisar, Jitendra Prasad Mishra, Raj Raghuvanshi, Prashant Prakash.

State Counsels: P.C. Srivastava, Additional Advocate General assisted by Advocates Vikas Goswami and Ankit Prakash.

Case title - Shakeel Ahmed vs. State of U.P. and connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 335

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 335

Click Here To Read/Download Order