Killers of innocent citizens can forget their families and bail

Dated: 20th February, 2017: Bench of Three Judges headed by The Chief Justice: Supreme Court of India:

If someone is involved in heinous offence of indiscriminate killing of innocents, then it is better he forgets his family ties.

No parole or interim bail should be granted to them to attend any family exigencies. The Apex Court sets the course for treating such matters in future.

Some say: Only social misfits shall commit crime. Capital punishment is the only way to deter criminals. Death is the only deterrent.

Some say: that “life sentence” does not mean what it says. After ten years or so of “good conduct”, the most desperate villain is free to return to society where he will live very comfortably.

Some say: A terrorist that commits big crime of killing innocents is made hero in media and becomes privileged person who expects and receives VIP treatment wherever he is kept or wherever he goes.

However courts of law have time and again delivered justice by a decision that speaks for itself.

Pankaj Abhimanyu Kamble vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others:

The petitioner was convicted under Sections 302 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (Punishment for murder and Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, respectively) and  allows parole for the petitioner to attend the wedding of his brother.

Pandurang Vitthal Karande & Another vs. State of Maharashtra & Others:

This petition sought furlough for the father and son petitioners to attend the wedding of their daughter/sister, respectively. The Additional Public Prosecutor confirmed that the wedding was indeed taking place and that the petitioners had not been granted furlough in the past. 

Temporary bail was granted for a period of 10 days, subject to payment of sureties and personal bonds.

Bandu Kothe and his nephew Rahul were part of the high court's historic verdict on January 24, 2011 where 21 accused were awarded lifer for a politically motivated murder of Ashok Deshmukh. , Bombay High Court division bench comprising Justices Bhushan Dharmadhikari and Chandrakant Bhadang just allowed, Bandu beingfather of the bride, to attend the wedding, but with full police escort.

Nagpur jail superintendent was told to make their to and fro arrangements at the government's expense and put them behind bars by evening.

Dated: 20th February, 2017: Supreme Court of India :

A bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar denied permission for interim bail to alleged Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Front (JKIF) terrorist Mohammad Naushad, who wanted to attend his daughter's marriage on February 28.

The bench, also comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, said:

Rejecting the bail plea of a terrorist convicted in the 1996 Lajpat Nagar blast case, “It would be better for those involved in killing of innocents to forget their families..”

Naushad, in his plea, had contended that:

“He has been in jail for the past two decades and wanted to attend his daughter's marriage.”

In April 2010:  The Trial court at  Delhi court had convicted six alleged JKIF militants, awarding death sentence to Mohd. Naushad, Mohd Ali Bhat alias Kille and Mirza Nissar Hussain, while their fourth accomplice Javed Ahmad Khan alias Chotta Javed was sentenced to life imprisonment.

The High Court had however commuted Mohd. Naushad's death sentence to life term and acquitted Hussain and Bhat, who were given capital punishment by the trial court. It had upheld the life sentence given to convict Javed Ahmad Khan, while slamming police for "serious lapses" in probe.

The judgment by Delhi High Court is of 232 pages.

1. These four appeals and one death reference arise out of a common judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 08-04-2010, whereby the Appellants viz. Naushad (A-3), Mirza Nissar Hussain @ Naza (A-5), Mohd. Ali Bhatt @ Killey (A-6), Javed Ahmed Khan (A-9) were convicted. A-3 was convicted under section 120-B, section 411 and section 302/307/436 read with section 120-B IPC. He was also convicted under Section 5 of the Explosives Substances Act. A-5 and A-6 were convicted under section 120-B, section 411 and section 302/307/436 read with section 120-B IPC. A-3, A-5 and A-6 were awarded death as also awarded further sentences under cognate for the lesser offences they were charged with. Javed (A-9) was convicted under section 120-B and section 302/307/436 read with section 120-B IPC and was awarded the sentence of imprisonment for life which was directed to run concurrently with sentences for lower offences and fine. All the appellants claimed to be aggrieved and have appealed to the Court against their convictions and sentences; since three of them have been awarded the death sentence, the learned Trial Court has referred the sentence for confirmation in terms of the provisions of Section 368 Cr.P.C.

2. Before an elaborate discussion of the evidence and documents presented before the Court, it would be necessary to recapitulate the salient facts. On 21.05.1996, a bomb blast took place in Central Market, Lajpat Nagar at 6.30 PM. This incident resulted in 13 deaths and 38 injuries, besides extensive loss to properties, both moveable and immoveable.

272. Conviction of A-3 for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC is set aside. His conviction for other offences is maintained. As far as sentence of death imposed under Section 120B read with Section 302 IPC is concerned, the Trial court found it to be rarest of the rare cases as he (A-3) was proved to have participated in the actual bombing in a busy market resulting in loss of life of thirteen and dangerous injuries to 38 persons.

As observed in the earlier part of the judgment, the prosecution has failed to establish that A-3 himself planted or participated in the actual explosion of the bomb but he is proved as a conspirator to have aided in the conspiracy to cause bomb explosion which resulted in immense loss of life and property.

In the circumstances, in our view the case would not fall in the category of rarest of rate cases and the award of extreme penalty of sentence to death cannot be confirmed. A-3 is thus sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 302 IPC. Sentences under other offences (except under Section 411 for which he has been acquitted) are upheld. The sentence with regard to fine for the convictions which have been upheld shall remain undisturbed. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Thus, the Appeal of A-3 (Mohammed Naushad) i.e. Crl.Appeal No.949/2010 partly succeeds in the manner described above.

273. The death sentences imposed on three accused A-3, A-5 and A-6 are consequently not confirmed; the Reference is answered in these terms.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON: 18.05.2012
PRONOUNCED ON: 22.11.2012
DEATH SENTENCE REF. 2/2010
STATE ..... Petitioner
Versus
MOHD. NAUSHAD & ORS. ..... Respondents
CRL.A. 948/2010, CRL. M. (BAIL) 1121/2010, CRL.A. 949/2010, CRL.A. 950/2010, CRL.A. 951/2010
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
G. P. MITTAL, J.
NOVEMBER 22, 2012

Date: 23/08/2013 This Matter was called on for hearing today. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the relevant material.

We are not inclined to grant bail at this juncture.

However, we are inclined to dispose of the main matter. The criminal miscellaneous petitions for bail are dismissed accordingly. Leave granted. List the appeals immediately after Diwali holidays in the month of November, 2013.

ITEM NO.14 COURT NO.1 SECTION II
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CRL.M.P. NO.8093 OF 2013 INPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).3184/2013
(From the judgement and order dated 22/11/2012 in CRA No.949/2010of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)
MOHAD NAUSHAD Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF (GOVT. NCT, DELHI) Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for bail)
WITH CRL.M.P. NOS.8628‐8629 OF 2013 IN S.L.P.(CRL.) NOS.3368‐3369/2013
(With appln.(s) for bail and office report)
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI

Date : 14/07/2016 These appeals and petitions were called on for hearing today. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew our attention to the order dated 09.07.2013 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 410-411 of 2012 which reads as under:

“Since the appellant has been sentenced to death by the order impugned before us, we deem it just and proper that these appeals be listed for hearing before a Bench comprising of three Hon'ble Judges. Registry to do the needful.”

She submits that in view of the above, Criminal Appeal No.1269 of 2013 preferred against the conviction of the appellant(s) and the sentence of imprisonment for life along with the accompanying Special Leave Petitions Nos. 6447-6451 of 2013

preferred by the State for restoration of the capital sentence awarded by the trial Court ought to be laid before a Bench comprising of three Hon'ble Judges.

As the High Court, in the present case, has commuted the death sentence awarded by the trial Court to one of life imprisonment, the Registry is required to ascertain and apprise this Court as to whether there is any instance as herein, or a decision of this Court on a situation of this kind where even if any party aggrieved by the commutation of a capital sentence to one of life imprisonment, seeks restoration of the death sentence, the matter ought to be heard by a Bench comprising of three Hon'ble Judges and not by a Division Bench of two Hon'ble Judges.

List after two weeks.

ITEM NO.111 COURT NO.10 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1269/2013
MOHAD NAUSHAD Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF (GOVT. NCT, DELHI) Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for bail and office report)
WITH Crl.A. No. 1270-1271/2013 (With appln.(s) for bail and Office Report)
SLP(Crl) No. 6447-6451/2013Office Report)
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY

Date : 01/09/2016 These appeals and petitions were called on for hearing today. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In view of the judgment in Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq vs.Registrar, Supreme Court of India and Others Etc. Etc. reported in (2014) 9 SCC 737 it has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties, that these matters which relate to restoration of death sentence ought to be heard by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges.

Accordingly, we direct the Registry to place these matters before an appropriate Bench consisting of three Hon'ble Judges.

ITEM NO.115 COURT NO.9 SECTION II
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1269/2013
MOHAD NAUSHAD Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF (GOVT. NCT, DELHI) Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for bail and office report)
WITH Crl.A. No. 1270-1271/2013 (With appln.(s) for bail and Office Report)
SLP(Crl) No. 6447-6451/2013 (With Office Report)
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY

Date: 20/02/2017: This application was called on for hearing today. Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. No ground for grant of bail is made out. Crl.MP 2948 of 2017 is accordingly dismissed.

ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIC
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CRLMP.2948/2017 in Criminal Appeal No(s).1269/2013
MOHAD NAUSHAD Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF (GOVT. NCT, DELHI) Respondent(s)
(For interim bail and office report)
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

With this the provision of Bail and Parole to terrorists and killers of Innocent Citizens seems to have ended.