Gujarat High Court
Zuheb @ Juheb @ Zoeb S/O Jiyauddin Ansari vs State Of Gujarat on 31 July, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (REGULAR BAIL) NO. 1117 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ZUHEB @ JUHEB @ ZOEB S/O JIYAUDDIN ANSARI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MAKSUD H PATEL(9224) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PRADIP D BHATE(1523) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 31/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL)
1. The present Appellant – Org. Accused No. 2 has
preferred the present Appeal under the provisions of
Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency (NIA)
Act, 2008 read with Section 439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, against the order passed by the Ld.
Page 1 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 23:18:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
Special NIA Court, Ahmedabad rejecting the Bail
Application of the present Appellant in connection with the
case Registered against him and other accused persons
being Special NIA Case No. 1/2016 arising out of FIR No.
164/2015 dated 02.11.2015 registered with Bharuch City
‘A’ Division Police Station later registered as RC NO.
13/2015 with NIA Delhi Police Station at New Delhi for the
offence punishable under Section 114,120-B, 153-A,
201,304,449 of the IPC read with Section 16,17,18,19,20
and 23 of the UAPA and Sections 25(1B)(a), 27(1) of the
Arms Act and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.
2. Facts of the present case are as under:-
2.1 That, on 2nd November 2015 at about 18:45 hrs,
victims namely Shirish Bangali and Pragnesh Mistry were
sitting in formers Newspaper office, Surya Printing
Press,Bharuch. Two unidentified persons came on
motorcycle and pillion rider got down, entered the office
and fired two rounds from a revolver like weapon, one on
Shirish Bengali just beneath his right earlobe and another
on Pragnesh Mistry with injury in his stomach and later
fled from the scene. Accordingly FIR No.164/2015 at
Bharuch A Division Police Station u/s 302, 114 of IPC and
25(1) C of Arms Act and G.P. Act 135 was registered on
02.11.2015 at 20:30 hrs as per the complaint of
Parthivkumar Bipinchandra Bengali,nephew of deceasedPage 2 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 23:18:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
Shirish Bengali.
2.2 During investigation by ATS, Gujarat, it was revealed
that, International Terror Module had been conspiring to
kill selected people belonging to particular sections of
society to foment communal passion. Accordingly, as per
intimation received from Government of Gujarat, Ministry
of Home Affairs,Government of India IS-I Division vide its
order number11034/107/2015-IS-IV dated 5th December,
2015directed National Investigation Agency to take up the
investigation of the C.R.No.164/2015 dated 02.11.2015of
Bharuch City A Division Police Station, Gujarat u/s34, 114,
120(B), 121, 121-A, 153A, 302 & 450 of Indian Penal Code,
section 25(1)A, 25(1)AA & 27 of Arms Act, section 13, 17
18 of Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act and section 135
of Gujarat Police Act. Accordingly NIA re-registered the
case vide RC13/2015/NIA/DLI on 05.12.2015 and taken up
the investigation of the case.
3. Heard Ld. Advocates for the respective parties.
4. Ld. Advocate Mr. Maksud H. Patel for the Appellant
submits:-
(1) That owing to the complaint lodged by the
complainant during the investigation, the appellant came
to be arrested on 11.11.2015 ever since, he is behind thePage 3 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 23:18:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
bar.
(2) That the case as narrated by the prosecution and in
the chargesheet is totally false, unbelievable that no
prudent can ever reach at conclusion, however, the
appellant is arrested only on suspicious ground. In fact,
appellant nothing to do with the present offence.
(3) That the Appellant has not named in the FIR and
there no prima facie role attributed to him, none of the
ingredients of the alleged offence have been committed
by the present Appellant.
(4) That the Investigating Agency has wrongly invoked
the stringent provision of UAPA and from the reading of
the chargesheet, no case is made out under the provisions
of UAPA.
(5) The Appellant has also undergone eight years of
incarceration and though the trial is running but is not
likely to conclude in near future and hence, long
incarceration itself would be violative of Art. 21 of the
Constitution of India which guarantees trials to be
concluded within a reasonable time.
(6) To buttress the argument, the Ld. Advocate relied
upon the following judgments :-
Page 4 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 23:18:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
1. Athar Parwez Vs Union of India reported in 2024(0)
AIJEL-SC 74416.
2 .Tapas Kumar Pali Vs. State of Chattisgarh reported
in 2025 INSC 222
3. Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of India reported in 2024
INSC 604(7) That from the deposition of the protected witness
(PW 18) who examined at Exh. 255 has stated on oath
that the payment was received by Co Accused Haiderali,
however, in the cross examination, has admitted that he
had given the instructions to Furkan Tumbi to give money.
Therefore, the present Appellant did not receive money to
kill Victim gets falsified.
(8) That the bare reading of the FIR nothing being stated
that the Appellant used terrorist act and it is not the case
that person belonging to particular sections of the society
was being targeted to kill.
(9) That only 41 witnesses examined out of 161
witnesses and since, the Trial could not be completed in
near future and the Appellant deserves to be released on
bail as not granting bail him would violate the Art. 21 of
the Constitution of India.
Page 5 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 23:18:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
(10) Because of Section 20 of UAPA has been wrongly
invoked since, this is applicable to an accused who is a
member of terrorist gang or terrorist organization which is
involved in a terrorist Act. However, there is not single
document to point out that the present Appellant is a
member of terrorist gang or terrorist organization.
(11) That the present Appellant is being implicated in the
case concerning events between July / August 2015 to
September / October, 2015, conspiracy was hatched
amongst the Accused Inayat @ Bala Son of Haziaiyub Patel
(A 3), Mohamad Yunus @ Manjro son of Mohmad Yusuf
Shaikh (A-4), Abid Patel Son of Dawood Patel (A-10) and
Javed Dawoodbhai Patel @ Javed Chikna (WA-1) and
Zahidmiya @ Jao Son of Saeedmiya Munshi Shaikh (WA-2).
However, the present Appellant was not part of the
conspiracy and even was not aware whether the co –
accused was a member of the terrorist gang or not.
(12) because even if the evidence of the Investigation is
considered as it is, the role of the appellant is only to the
limited extend of acting under the direction of the co-
accused. Hence, rigors of UAPA is not applicable.
Thus, prayed to allow the present Appeal and release the
Appellant on Bail.
Page 6 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 23:18:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
5. Ld. Advocate Mr. Pradip Bhate, Ld. Standing Counsel
Mr. Kshitij Amin and Ld. Advocate Mr. Sandip Sadavarte as
well as Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Adityasinh
Jadeja appearing for the Respondent State, have
vehemently opposed the present Appeal and relied upon
the Affidavit in Reply on behalf of the NIA has argued
that:-
5.1 The present Accused is one of the main conspirator
and also the shooter who had shoot two persons namely
Shirish Bangali and Pragnesh Mistry. That the present
Appellant was accompanied with the Accused No. 5 Haider
Ali, in executing murder by riding on motorcycle which is
also recovered. That the Accused No. 6 and 7 state that
present Appellants rented house in Bharuch for two days
and prior to murder had performed recky. That the
present Appellant along with Accused No. 5 fled away by
car of Accused No. 1 after committing murder. That the
Appellant with Accused No. 9 had collected weapon from
Mumbai to execute two murders. The Appellant was also
involved in practicing fire at Village Aamod in intervening
night of 21/22.10.2015. That the Appellant have received
proceeds of Rs. 50,000/- from Dubai through Havala. That
one dual sim card of Nokia mobile company, motor cycle,
three empty cartridge and one bullets, country made
pistols, five magazines, 20 cartridges, empty cartridges in
the open field of Aamod etc has been recovered by way ofPage 7 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 23:18:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
the panchnama under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act. That CCTV footage of Samanivala Travels of Bharuch
has been seized. That CDR mobiles to establish that he
was frequently in contact with Co-Accused i.e.,
A3,A9,A5,A10 are placed on record. That statement under
Section 161 of the CRPC and Section 164 of the CRPC
recorded in respect of 33 witnesses clearly establishes the
role of the present accused. That the present Appellant
had committed and played active role in murdering two
victims in furtherance of the international terror
conspiracy with an intent to strike terror in a people or
section of people of India is clearly established from both
documentary as well as oral statements and statements
recorded as per section 164 of the CRPC and thus, has
argued that the provisions of UAPA are attracted. That the
entire conspiracy was formed by D company Member,
Javed Chikna WA 1, who has declared as individual
terrorist by Government of India under UAPA. That in
furtherance of conspiracy associates Javed Miya @ Jao and
Abid Daud patel A- 9 has hired Muslim youth to kill the
people. The present Appellant along with Haidar Ali – A5
had committed the crime in furtherance of the said
conspiracy. That till date 50 witnesses have been
examined and after fresh pruning only 69 witnesses
remained to be examined and has thus, argued that at
this stage, when important witnesses are being examined
granting bail to the present Appellant would seriouslyPage 8 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 23:18:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
prejudice the case of the prosecution more particularly
there are chances of hampering or tempering the
witnesses since, the Appellant is a part of larger
conspiracy and supported by number of co -accused
persons who are still absconding and has thus, argued to
reject the present Appeal.
6. From the record, it transpires that murder of Sirish
Bangali and Pragnesh Mistry was a part of the larger
conspiracy to kill people belonging to particular sections of
the society allegedly involved in 2002 Gujarat Riots, more
particularly people from RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal and BJP
were targets. During the period of July to August 2015 to
September to October 2015 the Conspiracy was hatched
between Jahed Miya @ Jaho, Said Miya Munshi Shaikh
(W2)residing in port Elizabeth, South Africa, original Native
of Bharuch, Mohmad Yunush, Aabid Dawood Patel, Inayat
Patel and one wanted accused Javed Chikna residing in
Karachi Pakistan over phone through voice call, SMS,
whats-app call/massages to kill persons belonging to
particular section of society with an intention to create
communal unrest. It appears that after Mohmad Yunush
having identify the victim Sirish Bangali the preset
Appellant murdered him alongwith one Pragnesh Mistry. It
also transpires that the present Appellant preferred an
Application being Misc. Application No. 35 of 2020 which
came to be rejected by the Ld. Special NIA Judge, videPage 9 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 23:18:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
order dated 03.11.2020. Thereafter, Ld. Designated Court
under NIA Act, vide order dated 08.04.2025 rejected NIA
Cr.M.A. No. 18/2025. It appears that the present Appellant
did not engage an advocate in the initial point of time
however, engaged the advocate and proceeded with the
matter. Thus, it cannot be said that the entire burden of
delay is on the prosecution. As far as the reliance placed
by the Ld. Advocate in the case of Athar Parwez (Supra) is
concerned, it has been held that statutory bar on bail
must be harmonious with constitutional rights to ensure
speedy trial . It is also held that prolonged incarceration
without Trial necessitated granting bail despite serious
allegations and thus, was granted bail in the said case on
the ground of violation of fundamental right due to delay
in judicial proceedings. The next judgment relied on by the
Ld. Advocate in the case of Tapaskumar (Supra) wherein,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded that the Appellant
was arrested on 24.03.2020, the Trial Court in progress
and prosecution had been able to examined 100 witnesses
under such circumstances, coupled with the fact that PW
of the recovery panchnama had also turned hostile. The
Appellant having been five years in the judicial custody
coupled with the fact that the Ld. Counsel appearing for
the State had no idea as regards the time likely to
consume the complete recording of the evidence of 100
witnesses. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in such
circumstances, ordered to release the Appellant on bail.
Page 10 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 23:18:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
The Judgment of the Jalalludian (Supra) has relied upon by
the Ld. Advocate in the said case, the Appellant was
arrested on 12.07.2022 and the Trial Court had not made
any progress coupled with the fact, from the reading of
the papers of the chargesheet, the offence alleged against
the appellant were punishable under Section 13,18,18-A,
20 of the UAPA, however, High Court having found that
there is nothing in the chargesheet which shows that the
Appellant had taken part in or act unlawful inactivity as
defined in UAPA coupled with the fact that no specific
material point out that the Appellate Advocated, abated or
incited crime of any unlawful activity. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court further observed that assuming that the
co-accused indulged in terrorist act or were lacking any
act preparatory to the commission of the terrorist act,
there is absolutely no material on record to show that
there was any conspiracy to commit any terrorist act
which appellant was a party. Under such circumstances,
the bail was granted to the Appellant.
7. As noted herein above, the Trial is already underway
and after fresh pruning, 69 witnesses remains to be
examined. As far as delay part is concerned, as noted in
the order of the Ld. Trial Court NIA in 35/2020, initially,
the Appellant had not engaged any advocate, however,
subsequently, had engaged Advocate and proceed the
matter. Hence, it cannot be said that delay is absolutely
Page 11 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 23:18:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
on the part of the prosecution. However, the Appellant has
also delayed the proceedings by not engaging advocate
initially. Therefore, cited judgments in the case of Tapas
Kumar and Athar Parwez are not applicable. As far as the
case of the Jalaludin Khan. The facts in the present case
are totally different. As noted herein-above, the
conspiracy part with the various co-accused coupled with
the fact that the Javed Chikna was declared as individual
terrorist by the Government of India under UAPA and in
furtherance of conspiracy is associated with Javed Miya
and Abid who had hired Muslim youth to eliminate the
particular people of the society coupled with the fact that
the Appellant accused had committed the crime in
furtherance of the said conspiracy and also in view of the
ratio laid down in the case of Gurvindarsingh Vs. State
of Punjab reported in 2024(5) SCC 403, this Court has
examined material forming part of the chargesheet to
decide whether there is a reasonable ground for believing
the accussation against the person applying for bail are
prima facie true or not and while doing so, the Court has
taken into consideration chargesheet as it is.
8. Taking into consideration the legal as well as factual
aspects, this Court is of the opinion that both on the count
of restrictive scope under the UAPA Act coupled with the
fact that prosecution alone is not liable for the delay in
conducting the Trial and the manner in which the incident
Page 12 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 23:18:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1117/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
has taken place, this is not a fit case to exercise
discretionary powers in favour of the Applicant, more
particularly, when the Trial at its crucial stage of
examining the important witnesses and the Appellant
Accused as a part of larger international conspiracy had
played role of eliminating Sirish Bangali and Pragnesh
Jitubhai Mistry and if the Appellant is released on bail,
there is possibility of hampering or tempering the
witnesses including protected witnesses and the case as
well. The charges leveled against the Appellant – Accused
are heinous in nature and punishable for life imprisonment
and death penalty and from the facts of the present case,
it cannot be said that the Appellant is not a flight risk
more particularly when Co-accused persons are
successfully evading the arrest till date and are also
declared as absconder under such circumstances, and
reasons stated herein above, it appears that the
prosecution has clearly established strong prima facie
case against the Appellant and this Court is not inclined to
exercise powers vested to release the Appellant on bail.
Accordingly the present Appeal is rejected.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MMP
Page 13 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 23:18:25 IST 2025
[ad_1]
Source link