Telangana HC Explains Threshold Tests Of S.227 Within Statutory Framework Of CrPC, Upholds Conviction Of Accused With Alleged Ties To Lashkar-E-Taiba

The Telangana High Court has upheld the order of a Special Court wherein a discharged petition. filed by an accused who allegedly had ties to Lashkar-e-Taiba, and was planning a bombing during Dussehra was dismissed.

The accused had filed a criminal appeal against the order of the trial court, contending that the prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie charge and that everything stated by the prosecution, could not be taken as the gospel.

While dismissing the case, the division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Surepally Nanda examined in detail, the threshold tests of section 227 within the Statutory Framework of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The court noted that Discharge proceedings although conducted at a preliminary stage are not summary proceedings and evidence that is available should be carefully considered.

That the discharge petition filed under section 227, is part of a broader framework comprising of sections 239 and 245 of the CrPc which deal with discharge at different stages.

Relying on Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh the Bench emphasized, that while dealing with a discharge petition, the Court must not act like a post officer, but conduct an independent judicial inquiry, which requires judicial application of mind to establish whether or not a prima facie case can be carved out.

Another key aspect pointed out by the Bench was the mentioning of reasoning while disposing of the discharge petition.

In the present case, testing the above-mentioned criteria to the order passed by the trial court, the Bench noted that the order was well reasoned, containing detailed analysis of oral, material and technical evidence. The trial court had allowed the accused to present his case and also narrated the events leading up to the arrest making it 'replete with reason'.

“A careful reading of the impugned order makes it clear that the impugned order is replete with reasons. The Special Court has given reasons not only in referring to the contents of the Charge Sheet in detail but also to the evidence on record grouped into “Oral”, “Material” and “Technical” evidence stating the role of the appellant/accused No.3 in the alleged criminal conspiracy hatched by other accused persons who were traced to a Pakistan-based Terrorist Organization. The Special Court has stated the facts in detail including those leading to the appellant's arrest by the State Police on 02.10.2022 and seizure of a hand grenade from the appellant's possession. The Special Court has also narrated the factual findings from the investigation against the appellant, namely, that the appellant was part of a criminal conspiracy for causing bomb blasts in Hyderabad. The Special Court also referred to the facts revealed from the investigation that the appellant joined the LeT in Hyderabad for carrying out terrorist attacks during Dussehra and took a hand grenade from the accused No.1 for that purpose……..This Court is unable to accept the contention made on behalf of the appellant that the impugned order is opaque and fails to disclose reasons in view of the facts and evidentiary particulars stated in the impugned order.”

Background:

The accused was involved in a case, Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 18, 20, 38, and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Explosives Substances Act for which he was arrested on October 2, 2022, and subsequently placed in judicial custody.

According to the prosecution, he was alleged to have participated in a conspiracy to wage war against India in collaboration with Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) operatives. The allegations included meeting other accused persons at 'Al-Marjaan' Restaurant in Hyderabad, where he allegedly received hand grenades. The prosecution claimed he planned to use these grenades at a public gathering during Dussehra following instructions from LeT operatives.

To prove the said allegation, the prosecution placed before the Court CCTV footage of the restaurant meeting on September 29, 2022, testimonies from two protected witnesses, and notably, a hand grenade containing RDX that was seized from his possession.

Owing to the gravity of the evidence, the trial court dismissed the petition seeking discharge. This led to the filing of the present criminal appeal, with the argument that the words of the prosecution cannot be taken as the absolute truth.

The High Court noted that the trial court had meticulously appreciated all evidence placed before it, heard the accused, stated elaborate reasons, and only then dismissed the petition. Hence, refrained from interfering with the said order.

“In the impugned order at hand, there is no doubt that the Special Court arrived at the prima facie view of the appellant's involvement in the alleged conspiracy upon due consideration of the material evidence before it. There is also no doubt that the appellant was given an opportunity of hearing before dismissal of the petition. Our view on the correctness of the impugned order is buttressed by the settled position that the Court should come to a conclusion that there is a probability of commission of the offence and accordingly, a case has been made out for framing of the charge. The conclusion must be based on the material on record.”

Before concluding, the bench also clarified that their opinion is presumptive opinion of the existence of factual ingredients, however, this is not the end of the road for the accused, and that the accused would have ample opportunity to defend himself at the time of trial.

Counsel for the appellant: Pattabhi Vemulapati, sr. counsel, representing Shaik Mohammed Rizwan Akhtar.

Counsel for State: P. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Special PP NIA.

Maaz Hassan Farooq Maaz vs. State of TS

Click Here To Read/Download Order