Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Afroz Khan Shahid Khan Pathan in UAPA Case, Citing Lack of Substantive Evidence

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the Bombay High Court, in a judgment pronounced on June 22, 2023, has granted bail to Afroz Khan Shahid Khan Pathan, who was convicted under various sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court, comprising Hon'ble Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Hon'ble Justice Gauri Godse, suspended the applicant's sentence and ordered his release on bail, citing a lack of substantive evidence to support the allegations.

Afroz Khan Shahid Khan Pathan, a 41-year-old pharmacist residing in Majalgoan, District Beed, Maharashtra, had appealed against his conviction. The court heard the arguments from both the applicant's counsel, Mr. Mubin Solkar with Mr. Tahir Hussain, and the prosecution, represented by Mr. Raja Thakare, Senior Advocate, along with Ms. S. S. Kaushik, Assistant Public Prosecutor, and Mr. Siddharth Jagushte.

The judgment highlighted that the prosecution heavily relied on confessional statements, call detail records (CDRs), and an email as evidence against the applicant. However, the court examined the confessions made by co-accused Mohammed Amir (A-1) and Aakif (A-11) and found no corroborative material or evidence to substantiate the allegations that the applicant had visited Bangladesh to collect funds.

Bombay High court observed, "There is no evidence on record to show that the applicant visited Bangladesh to collect funds as alleged by the prosecution." It further noted that the confessions of the co-accused did not clearly establish the applicant's involvement in the alleged crimes or his knowledge of the purpose for which he was sent to Bangladesh.

The court also considered an email sent by the applicant to Mohammed Amir (A-11) but found it to be inconclusive and not incriminating. The absence of a Section 65B Certificate, which authenticates electronic evidence, further weakened the prosecution's case. The court acknowledged that the applicant had been in custody for 17 years, during which he pursued educational endeavors, completed a yoga course, and engaged in counseling and de-radicalization sessions within the prison.

Citing these factors, the court concluded that the applicant had made a prima facie case for the suspension of his sentence and granted him bail. However, the court imposed specific conditions, including the submission of a personal recognizance bond of Rs. 50,000 and regular reporting to the ATS. The applicant was also directed to deposit his passport, inform the court and investigating authorities of any changes in address or contact details, and obtain permission before leaving Maharashtra.

This judgment holds significance as it emphasizes the importance of substantive evidence in criminal cases and highlights the need for proper adherence to procedural requirements when introducing electronic evidence. The granting of bail to Afroz Khan Shahid Khan Pathan after 17 years in custody underscores the court's recognition of his educational pursuits and rehabilitation efforts.

Date of Decision: 22nd June 2023

Afroz Khan Shahid vs The State of Maharashtra

Latest Legal News