MUMBAI: Bombay high court granted bail to a 50-year-old tailor from the Bandra East area, who was accused of harbouring and helping a terrorist in a 2021 case in Mumbai.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) was informed that terrorist Zakir Hussain Shaikh along with another person, were harboured and concealed by the tailor, Mohammed Irfan Shaikh, but the HC found no merit and granted him bail on a personal bond of Rs 50,000.
The HC said the embargo under the anti-terror law for bail does not come in the way if the court comes to a conclusion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the allegations are prima facie true, as it has in this case.
A bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse quashed and set aside the bail rejection order of the special NIA court that was passed last year.
His lawyers Majeed Memon and Khalil Girkar argued that a special NIA court had erred in denying him bail in the case registered with the Kalachowkie police station in Mumbai under the anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (prevention ) Act (UAPA). Memon said no offence is disclosed in the FIR or chargesheet and it contains nothing to show that the tailor knew that main accused Zakir Hussain was involved in any terror activity. He said Shaikh came in touch with Zakir, a rickshaw driver, during the pandemic lock-down for his commute to work. He thus had let Zakir stay on September 17, 2021 night with him and gave his bank account details to accept Rs 50,000 from USA since Zakir said he lost his wallet.
Earlier the Anti Terror Squad which probed the case was informed that Zaki and another person from a neighbouring country were indulging in terror acts and planned to strike terror in Mumbai .
Police arrested Zakir in September 2021.
After arrest, accused Zakir gave memorandum statement stating that big work was given to him at the instance of Chota Shakil, through Zakir’s brother namely Sagir residing in Pakistan. He had received an amount from his brother Sagir through Western Union Money transfer in the name of his friend Irfan.
During in vestigation,applicant was arraigned as accused being found involved and having given shelter to the accused Zakir, the trial court order had said.
The HC said 205 calls made between Shaikh and Zakir in the span of a year cannot be said to be incriminating per se. The HC also after hearing additional Public prosecutor S S Kaushik said “although has tendered a compilation of documents and statements, has not been able to point out a single statement from the said compilation of witnesses to show that the appellant had the requisite knowledge that Zakir was indulging in terrorist activities, apart from pointing out the three admitted circumstances i.e. that Zakir stayed with the appellant in the intervening night of 17th and 18th September 2021; that there was recovery at the instance of Zakir from the appellant’s house i.e. of Rs.50,000/-, memory/sim card a chit on which it was written ‘Zakirbhai’; and of a money transfer from one Rohan Habib from U.S.A to the bank account of the appellant..’’
When questioned the prosecutor said to the HC that the person Habib who sent the money has not been made an accused.
The HC said, “Considering the material on record and having perused the statements, we are prima facie of the view that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not of such a nature so as to sustain a reasonable belief that the accusations against the appellant are prima facie true and hence the bar under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA will not apply.’’
Shaikh had appealed against the denial of bail by the trial court. Allowing his appeal, the HC placed certain conditions on his bail including that he must report to the office of the NIA, Mumbai Branch, Mumbai, on the first Saturday of every month from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, till the conclusion of the trial.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) was informed that terrorist Zakir Hussain Shaikh along with another person, were harboured and concealed by the tailor, Mohammed Irfan Shaikh, but the HC found no merit and granted him bail on a personal bond of Rs 50,000.
The HC said the embargo under the anti-terror law for bail does not come in the way if the court comes to a conclusion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the allegations are prima facie true, as it has in this case.
A bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse quashed and set aside the bail rejection order of the special NIA court that was passed last year.
His lawyers Majeed Memon and Khalil Girkar argued that a special NIA court had erred in denying him bail in the case registered with the Kalachowkie police station in Mumbai under the anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (prevention ) Act (UAPA). Memon said no offence is disclosed in the FIR or chargesheet and it contains nothing to show that the tailor knew that main accused Zakir Hussain was involved in any terror activity. He said Shaikh came in touch with Zakir, a rickshaw driver, during the pandemic lock-down for his commute to work. He thus had let Zakir stay on September 17, 2021 night with him and gave his bank account details to accept Rs 50,000 from USA since Zakir said he lost his wallet.
Earlier the Anti Terror Squad which probed the case was informed that Zaki and another person from a neighbouring country were indulging in terror acts and planned to strike terror in Mumbai .
Police arrested Zakir in September 2021.
After arrest, accused Zakir gave memorandum statement stating that big work was given to him at the instance of Chota Shakil, through Zakir’s brother namely Sagir residing in Pakistan. He had received an amount from his brother Sagir through Western Union Money transfer in the name of his friend Irfan.
During in vestigation,applicant was arraigned as accused being found involved and having given shelter to the accused Zakir, the trial court order had said.
The HC said 205 calls made between Shaikh and Zakir in the span of a year cannot be said to be incriminating per se. The HC also after hearing additional Public prosecutor S S Kaushik said “although has tendered a compilation of documents and statements, has not been able to point out a single statement from the said compilation of witnesses to show that the appellant had the requisite knowledge that Zakir was indulging in terrorist activities, apart from pointing out the three admitted circumstances i.e. that Zakir stayed with the appellant in the intervening night of 17th and 18th September 2021; that there was recovery at the instance of Zakir from the appellant’s house i.e. of Rs.50,000/-, memory/sim card a chit on which it was written ‘Zakirbhai’; and of a money transfer from one Rohan Habib from U.S.A to the bank account of the appellant..’’
When questioned the prosecutor said to the HC that the person Habib who sent the money has not been made an accused.
The HC said, “Considering the material on record and having perused the statements, we are prima facie of the view that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not of such a nature so as to sustain a reasonable belief that the accusations against the appellant are prima facie true and hence the bar under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA will not apply.’’
Shaikh had appealed against the denial of bail by the trial court. Allowing his appeal, the HC placed certain conditions on his bail including that he must report to the office of the NIA, Mumbai Branch, Mumbai, on the first Saturday of every month from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, till the conclusion of the trial.
