On 19th September, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to four individuals who were serving life sentences in connection with a terrorist attack that took place 18 years ago at the Ram Janmabhoomi site in Ayodhya. Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi, presiding over the bench, have issued an order for the appeals filed by the individuals, challenging their life sentences, to be scheduled for a hearing on December 4, 2023.
The convicts in this case Shakeel Ahmed, Mohammad Naseem, Asif Iqbal alias Faroq and Dr. Irfan were granted bail subject to conditions. They moved the high court seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
All four individuals were convicted in the 2005 case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) such as Sections 302/120B, 307/120B, 153A/120B, 153B/120B, 295/120B, 353/120B, as well as Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, in conjunction with Section 120B of the IPC, and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, along with Section 120B of the IPC. The most severe penalty imposed on them in this case was a life imprisonment sentence.
The terrorist attack on the Ram Janmabhoomi in 2005
In the case of the terror attack, on July 5, 2005, at approximately 9:15 in the morning, a marshal jeep came to a halt near the Jain Temple in Ayodhya, resulting in an explosion within the jeep. Subsequently, five heavily armed terrorists launched an assault on the premises of the ‘Ram Janmbhoomi Sthal,’ and security forces responded fiercely.
During the confrontation, all five terrorists were killed, along with one civilian. The deceased terrorists were discovered with an arsenal that included AK-47 rifles, live ammunition, rocket launchers, and other weaponry.
Conviction in the trial court
The prosecution’s case against the four accused individuals detailed their alleged role as conspirators in the attack. The prosecution’s key evidence hinged on the discovery of a Nokia mobile handset. Through surveillance of the phone and an examination of its call detail records, it was revealed that eight SIM cards had been used with the same handset, some of which were linked to the accused individuals.
The trial court, in its verdict, concluded that the prosecution had effectively proven its case beyond any reasonable doubt, primarily resting its judgment on the recovery of the Nokia mobile handset.
The defence argument
The legal representatives for the four convicts contended that there was insufficient evidence to establish the recovery of the Nokia mobile handset itself. Furthermore, they argued that the mobile calls presented by the prosecution were supported solely by Call Detail Records (CDRs), and there was no accompanying certificate provided in accordance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to substantiate their authenticity.
The bail plea
The defence contended that none of the convicted individuals had a prior criminal record, and they had already served more than eighteen years in incarceration. Therefore, given the potential extended duration of the appeals’ proceedings, they requested bail for their release.
The State respondent opposed the bail plea, with the Additional Advocate General presenting arguments against it. They pointed out that some of the accused individuals had been in contact with individuals from across the border. The high court observed that the paper book necessary for the appeals of the convicts was not prepared at the time. Consequently, the appeals could not be heard and concluded at present.
Furthermore, the court emphasised that in 2022, the Supreme Court had directed that the bail plea of the convicts be scheduled for consideration before the same bench assigned to hear their appeals.
The high court said, “A period of more than one year has expired since the order of the Supreme Court and therefore, we are of the view that the prayer made by the accused persons for consideration of their first bail applications is liable to be considered.”
The court added, “We are not required to return any definite finding on this aspect as a detailed appraisal of the evidence led during the trial, on such aspect, would be required at the time of hearing of the appeals. However, we do find that prima facie arguable points are raised in the appeal on the aspect relating to the factum of recovery of the mobile handset.”
The court further observed, “Other legal issues have also been raised including the evidentiary value of call detail records particularly as there is no certificate produced in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act. It is also admitted to the prosecution that none of the accused-appellants have any criminal history and they have languished in jail for the last more than 18 years.” The court then granted bail to the four accused in the Ayodhya terror attack case of 2005 subject to various conditions.
