1993 Bombay Blasts Case : Supreme Court Dismisses CBI's Plea For Police Custody Of 4 Accused Arrested After 29 Years

The State of Maharashtra through the DIG of CBI moved the present appeal before the Supreme Court challenging an order passed by a Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) Court which had rejected the petitioners application for further police custody remand of the respondents. Bakar, along with others, is the accused in the Bombay Blasts case in 1993. Around 257 persons lost their lives, 700 persons were injured and the properties worth around 27 crores were destroyed as a result of the incident.

After 29 years, on May 13, Abu Baker, Sayyed Qureshi, Shoes Qureshi and Mohammed Yusuf Ismail @ Yusuf Battle were arrested by the Gujarat Anti Terrorism Squad in Ahmedabad. On May 21, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate granted transit remand of the respondents to the Central Bureau of Investigation [CBI]. On May 23, the CBI produced the respondents before the special judge and sought 14 days custody. But the special judge allowed only for a 7-day remand.

On May 30, the petitioners sought for 14 days further remand of the respondents since the investigation was pending. Before the court, it was argued that the TADA provides for remand up to 60 days in police custody. The special judge, however, refused this request.

As per the petition, while rejecting the remand application, the special judge had made an observation in the order stating that no investigation had been conducted on certain days when the respondents were in custody of the petitioner CBI. This is an erroneous observation, the petition stated.

According to the appeal, the Special Court had overlooked the following aspects while rejecting the application seeking further remand:

The impugned order did not take into consideration that the respondents had been absconding for 29 years, and that further investigation is necessary given the severity and seriousness of the crime.

The custody of the respondent accused is necessary for conducting further investigation, including taking the respondent accused to the places connected with the offense.

The accused respondents were hardened terrorists and have not been cooperating during the investigation, and therefore police custody was necessary to elicit information from them.

The seven days police custody remand was not sufficient as further investigation is still going on.

On these grounds, the present appeal was filed.

When the matter was taken up for hearing today, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju sought Bakar's custody for a period of 14 days for further interrogation.

"How many days of custody has he undergone?" the Bench asked.

"7 days", ASG Raju replied.

"Theoretically, after judicial custody is granted, you can't go back to police custody. That's what the Central Bureau of Investigation vs Anupam Kulkarni says", the Bench replied.

The judgment also states that the magistrate under S.167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can authorize the detention of the accused in prison as he sees fit, but it should not exceed 15 days in totality, the court said.

To this, ASG Raju informed that the issue in Kulkarni is different from the present case.

"Here, I have made an application for remand within 60 days under TADA…..Application is made within the period specified in the Act."

The Bench then queried, "Even if the man is in judicial custody, no one stops you from interrogating him. Custodial interrogation is of a different dimension…..If we accept your submission, even after 6 months, there can be a remand for police custody."

With this, the Court added that while Bakar is in judicial custody, the police could still take his samples, fingerprints etc. if required.

Further, the court said,

"Investigators also must be very aware. You can't immediately arrest someone…"

At this point, ASG Raju pressed on the seriousness of the crimes alleged against Bakar, "257 persons were dead and around 700 were injured. We had to arrest him…"

ASG Raju further said that instead of 14 days, he would be satisfied with just 2 days of police custody. The Bench was not inclined to grant this prayer.

"You should have come to this court earlier. Sorry sir, dismissed.", the Court said, while rejecting the appeal plea.

Case Title: The State of Maharashtra through DIG CBI vs Abu Baker and ors| Diary No.21245/2022