1993 Serial Train Blasts: Supreme Court Directs TADA Court To Complete Framing Of Charges Against Accused In Pending Trial Within 2 Months
story
In connection with the bail plea of Hameer Ui Uddin, accused in the serial blasts in multiple Rajdhani Express and other trains in 1993, the Supreme Court on Monday directed that the Special Judge of the Designated Court, Ajmer shall complete the framing of the charges in 2 months.The direction was issued by a bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and B. V. Nagarathna in the light of the SLP...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
In connection with the bail plea of Hameer Ui Uddin, accused in the serial blasts in multiple Rajdhani Express and other trains in 1993, the Supreme Court on Monday directed that the Special Judge of the Designated Court, Ajmer shall complete the framing of the charges in 2 months.
The direction was issued by a bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and B. V. Nagarathna in the light of the SLP filed by Uddin challenging the rejection of bail by the Special Judge, Ajmer on March 27, 2019. In August, the Court had directed the Special Judge, Designated Court, Ajmer, Rajasthan to submit a report to the Top Court explaining as to why charges have not been framed against Hameer Ui Uddin accused in the serial blasts in multiple Rajdhani Express and other trains in 1993.
On Monday, the bench recorded that the Special Judge has submitted its report on August 26, 2021 in regard to the reasons for the delay in the framing of charges against the petitioner: "The CBI has also filed a counter-affidavit. Mr. Shoeb Alam, advocate for the petitioner, has inter alia placed reliance on the judgment of this court in K. A. Najeeb (2021) in support of his submission that the petitioner has already undergone 11 years 6 months in custody and should now be enlarged on bail. ASG S. V. Raju has submitted (1) the petitioner was absconding for 17 years after the bomb-blasts in which he was implicated and was arrested only in 2010; (2) as regards the co-accused, in whose case the trial took place, the Supreme Court by its judgment of 2016 inter alia upheld the conviction of A1-A5, A7, A11 and A14-A16 and maintained their sentence of life imprisonment; (3) the judgment of this court specifically takes note of the confessional statement of A4- M. Jamaal Alvi- where the role of the petitioner in planting bombs on December 5, 1993, in the Delhi-Howrah Rajdhani Express is implicated; (4) There is a confession of the petitioner himself in respect of the offences charged which are punishable under the TADA", recorded the bench.
It continued to note, "At this stage, the court is apprised that the framing of charges is delayed in view of the fact that the trial is pending before the Designated Court in Ajmer against 3 accused persons(petitioner and 2 others). Of the above, Sayeed Abdul Karim is lodged at the Ghaziabad Central Jail and not produced on several dates"
The bench directed,
"We direct the Special Judge, Designated Court, Ajmer to complete the framing of charges within 2 months. ASG S. V. Raju also stated that the CBI would ensure the transfer of the co-accused from Ghaziabad to Central Jail, Ajmer so as to facilitate framing of charges and expeditious conclusion of trial. The Special Judge shall submit a report to this court immediately after the framing of charges. The CBI shall take necessary steps thereafter to ensure that the trial is conducted expeditiously. List on December 10."
Distinguishing the facts of the instant case from that of K. A. Najeeb, Justice Chandrachud had told Mr Alam, "Najeeb's case one where all accused were sentenced to 8 years. So the rationale which weighed with the court was that since the applicants have already undergone more than 5 years, they may be released. Here, the co-accused are sentenced to life imprisonment. This is a very important circumstance. Should you be awarded the same punishment, then the fact that you have put in 10 years is not sufficient…Also, you were absconding for 17 years. That is an indicator that you may not be available to face the trial…what does the court do in such a situation?"
However, issuing the aforesaid directions and listing the matter for December 10, the judge added, "We are not disposing off your application. We are keeping it pending. We will monitor the situation on December 10…"
Case Title: Hameer Ui Uddin @ Hamid @ Hamiduddin V. The State Of Rajasthan